quote:

---

It's not as if we're ever going to find any evidence that American money went to any Sunni terrorist jihadist groups in Lebanon, which I allege. There is no direct connection. What there is is a flood of American money, none of it approved by Congress, into the government of Lebanon, which is Sunni. The government of Prime Minister Siniora. And they, in turn, funnel it into various -- at least three different Sunni jihadist groups.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by marfknox

The idea is that US funds are going to Sunni extremist groups (who are more than willing to engage in terrorism, may be connected with Al-Quaeda, and hate the USA) because these groups hate the Shiite as much or more than they hate the USA, and will therefore suppress Shiite influence in the region.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chippewa

I'm so old fashioned. If a group attacks us and they are wearing uniforms and have generals and a flag, they're a country, war is declared and it's a military matter.

If they attack us and are a shadowy organization of fanatics or thugs trained to hijack planes, then they're terrorists and it's a crime which is a police matter. (Police -- as in FBI, Interpol, Scotland Yard, etc.)

And if we have leaders who were warned of an attack, allowed it to happen, but declare a abstract "war on terror" and send our soldiers after the Afghan training camps of the perpetrators yet in the big picture as a ruse to their real goal of Iraq's oil, use lies about ties to terrorists to justify an invasion and not actually pursue the main terrorist in tacit anticipation of further outrageousness attacks, co-opted to justify further corporate via military targets. Then those leaders are traitors, deserving impeachment, arrest and trial.

---

quote:

---

Kerry's adversaries have found it easy to ridicule his views on foreign policy, suggesting that his idea of counterterrorism is simply to go around arresting all the terrorists. This is what Dick Cheney was getting at when he said last month that there was a danger, should Kerry be elected, that ''we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war.'' These barbs have some resonance, largely because Kerry is so obviously defensive about them.

---

quote:

---

When Kerry first told me that Sept. 11 had not changed him, I was surprised. I assumed everyone in America -- and certainly in Washington -- had been changed by that day. I assumed he was being overly cautious, afraid of providing his opponents with yet another cheap opportunity to call him a flip-flopper. What I came to understand was that, in fact, the attacks really had not changed the way Kerry viewed or talked about terrorism -- which is exactly why he has come across, to some voters, as less of a leader than he could be. He may well have understood the threat from Al Qaeda long before the rest of us. And he may well be right, despite the ridicule from Cheney and others, when he says that a multinational, law-enforcement-like approach can be more effective in fighting terrorists. But his less lofty vision might have seemed more satisfying -- and would have been easier to talk about in a political campaign -- in a world where the twin towers still stood.

---

quote:

---

They (the government) supports some horrid faction, no matter how bad these guys are, in order to combat some other "bad guys". And in most cases it back-fires.

I don´t know much about politics but this way of doing things always comes to a bad result afterwards.

---

quote:

---

They (the government) supports some horrid faction, no matter how bad these guys are, in order to combat some other "bad guys". And in most cases it back-fires.

I don´t know much about politics but this way of doing things always comes to a bad result afterwards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dude

I would like to know who "the terrorists" are, specifically. What are their names, are they independent individuals who are pissed off, are they crazy religious groups, etc.

As far as I know only one group, lead by Osama bin Laden, has attacked the US at home. And that guy is still at large.

I know we have killed the alQaeda #3 guy like 5 times now (there is some morbid comedy in that... "Hassan, you are my new #3 guy!" enter SNL skit).

But isn't the violence in Iraq, that is directed at the US troops, being carried out mostly by Shiite and Sunni militias? Yeah, alQaeda has some presense in Iraq, but how much of the current violence are they responsible for.

I dunno, I'm just tired of hearing politicians use the phrase "the terrorists". I want them to name names and specify locations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by perrodetokio

quote:

---

Originally posted by marfknox

The idea is that US funds are going to Sunni extremist groups (who are more than willing to engage in terrorism, may be connected with Al-Quaeda, and hate the USA) because these groups hate the Shiite as much or more than they hate the USA, and will therefore suppress Shiite influence in the region.

---

I am not an expert in the matter, however it seems to me that the american government has been doing that for decades now:

the Afghan "freedom fighters" - against the soviets.
Castro in cuba, Sadam Hussain, the contras in central america, Galtieri and his military coup in Argentina, etc, etc.

They (the government) supports some horrid faction, no matter how bad these guys are, in order to combat some other "bad guys". And in most cases it back-fires.

I don´t know much about politics but this way of doing things always comes to a bad result afterwards.

(sorry to butt in, it´s just an subjective observation)

cheers

---