Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War

[Ban Hammer 14,200]

Terrorists do not exist because they believe faithfully in their cause. No, you are giving them too much credit. Terrorists and insurgents are paid very well to carry out attacks. Terrorism is not an ideology, it is a business. If you stop the funding, you shut down the business. Each AQ leader killed destabilizes this business. With each benefactor captured, terrorism takes a pay cut. We are sending the message that terrorism is not a stable career choice.

Did you make this up all on your own? Suicide bombing has always been a pretty short lived career, no?

i've seen payments to their families in the range of 30-50k, which is a chunk of change in the 3rd world.

So, you're saying that folks have kids so they can have them blow themselves up for the money?

And so the father goes: "Well son, we made our investment in you got you big and strong enough to do the one thing we had you for. It's time for you to fulfill your sole purpose. Go strap that thing on and blow yourself up so we can get some food on this damn table."

I don't think so.

i didn't paint that picture, you did.

Matt did. He called terrorism a career path. Which it clearly isn't - at least not for the foot soldiers.

i suppose it could be called a career, although a rather short one with little chance of advancement.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think it can be seen as a business - on the basis that you don't see the leaders of these movements strapping on the explosives and blowing themselves up. From what I've read they seek out impressionable, naive people to indoctrinate and its those people that do the 'dirty work', as it were. Not the bosses - I do wonder whether or not they actually believe in 'the cause'.

Edited October 9, 2007 by Number 6

[Peikko 1,575]

Of course, this piece was published in 2002 when the need to portray Sadaam Hussain as the evil dictator was paramount. Not to say that he wasn't, or that his deeds weren't dastardly, but I think we can see past a little bit of journalistic jiggery pokery, don't you?

I have no experience with Middle Eastern terrorism, but one suspects that terrorist motives are pretty much universal, it's generally speaking a power struggle, a feeling of being victimised by a larger and more powerful government and the idea that the only way to get anything to change is to engage in violent acts. It's not subtle and it doesn't often work in terms of regime change as in the end there has to be a political resolution but that's seems to be the rationale.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Terrorists do not exist because they believe faithfully in their cause. No, you are giving them too much credit. Terrorists and insurgents are paid very well to carry out attacks. Terrorism is not an ideology, it is a business. If you stop the funding, you shut down the business. Each AQ leader killed destabilizes this business. With each benefactor captured, terrorism takes a pay cut. We are sending the message that terrorism is not a stable career choice.

Did you make this up all on your own? Suicide bombing has always been a pretty short lived career, no?

i've seen payments to their families in the range of 30-50k, which is a chunk of change in the 3rd world.

So, you're saying that folks have kids so they can have them blow themselves up for the money?

And so the father goes: "Well son, we made our investment in you got you big and strong enough to do the one thing we had you for. It's time for you to fulfill your sole purpose. Go strap that thing on and blow yourself up so we can get some food on this damn table."

I don't think so.

i didn't paint that picture, you did.

Matt did. He called terrorism a career path. Which it clearly isn't - at least not for the foot soldiers.

i suppose it could be called a career, although a rather short one with little chance of advancement.

He referred to it as a "stable career path" that it no longer is because of W great war on terror. All I am saying is that terrorism hasn't really been a stable career path ever. W's imaginative war on terror didn't change anything in that regard. Not a thing.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The other side of it of course is that terrorism is big business for those who fund and supply them. Even the US is guilty of that - the Iran Contra affair for one, and the Mujahadeen.

[mRx 16]

I am interested to know what the going rate for a suicide bombing is? A place in heaven might seem a good deal to an idealist, but it's not such a good business proposition in my opinion.

Suicide bombers are merely a weapon, one of the "weapons" built by the business of terrorism. There is alot of money that goes into the process of enticing, molding, and brainwashing these prospective weapons. If Bin Laden was a true believer of his B.S, and terrorism was fueled by ideals, then he would have been on one of those jetliners.

[Dan J 277]

I am interested to know what the going rate for a suicide bombing is? A place in heaven might seem a good deal to an idealist, but it's not such a good business proposition in my opinion.

Suicide bombers are merely a weapon, one of the "weapons" built by the business of terrorism. There is alot of money that goes into the process of enticing, molding, and brainwashing these prospective weapons. If Bin Laden was a true believer of his B.S, and terrorism was fueled by ideals, then he would have been on one of those jetliners.

Since when do leaders do the fighting? Bush or any of his cabinet haven't gone to Iraq and fought alongside the soldiers they are leading. So by using your logic, Bush doesn't believe the BS he is saying.

To his cause, Bin Laden has other roles. Everything from fund raising, to recruitment to propaganda.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I am interested to know what the going rate for a suicide bombing is? A place in heaven might seem a good deal to an idealist, but it's not such a good business proposition in my opinion.

Suicide bombers are merely a weapon, one of the "weapons" built by the business of terrorism. There is alot of money that goes into the process of enticing, molding, and brainwashing these prospective weapons. If Bin Laden was a true believer of his B.S, and terrorism was fueled by ideals, then he would have been on one of those jetliners.

Since when do leaders do the fighting? Bush or any of his cabinet haven't gone to Iraq and fought alongside the soldiers they are leading. So by using your logic, Bush doesn't believe the BS he is saying.

To his cause, Bin Laden has other roles. Everything from fund raising, to recruitment to propaganda.

You left out, recruiting six year olds.

[GaryC 7]

I am interested to know what the going rate for a suicide bombing is? A place in heaven might seem a good deal to an idealist, but it's not such a good business proposition in my opinion.

Suicide bombers are merely a weapon, one of the "weapons" built by the business of terrorism. There is alot of money that goes into the process of enticing, molding, and brainwashing these prospective weapons. If Bin Laden was a true believer of his B.S, and terrorism was fueled by ideals, then he would have been on one of those jetliners.

Since when do leaders do the fighting? Bush or any of his cabinet haven't gone to Iraq and fought alongside the soldiers they are leading. So by using your logic, Bush doesn't believe the BS he is saying.

To his cause, Bin Laden has other roles. Everything from fund raising, to recruitment to propaganda.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am interested to know what the going rate for a suicide bombing is? A place in heaven might seem a good deal to an idealist, but it's not such a good business proposition in my opinion.

Suicide bombers are merely a weapon, one of the "weapons" built by the business of terrorism. There is alot of money that goes into the process of enticing, molding, and brainwashing these prospective weapons. If Bin Laden was a true believer of his B.S, and terrorism was fueled by ideals, then he would have been on one of those jetliners.

Since when do leaders do the fighting? Bush or any of his cabinet haven't gone to Iraq and fought alongside the soldiers they are leading. So by using your logic, Bush doesn't believe the BS he is saying.

To his cause, Bin Laden has other roles. Everything from fund raising, to recruitment to propaganda.

You left out, recruiting six year olds.

See bolded. That there would be a general term

Edited October 9, 2007 by Number 6

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I am interested to know what the going rate for a suicide bombing is? A place in heaven might seem a good deal to an idealist, but it's not such a good business proposition in my opinion.

Suicide bombers are merely a weapon, one of the "weapons" built by the business of terrorism. There is alot of money that goes into the process of enticing, molding, and brainwashing these prospective weapons. If Bin Laden was a true believer of his B.S, and terrorism was fueled by ideals, then he would have been on one of those jetliners.

Since when do leaders do the fighting? Bush or any of his cabinet haven't gone to Iraq and fought alongside the soldiers they are leading. So by using your logic, Bush doesn't believe the BS he is saying.

To his cause, Bin Laden has other roles. Everything from fund raising, to recruitment to propaganda.

You left out, recruiting six year olds.

See bolded. That there would be a general term

Just detailing the recruitment statement.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am interested to know what the going rate for a suicide bombing is? A place in heaven might seem a good deal to an idealist, but it's not such a good business proposition in my opinion.

Suicide bombers are merely a weapon, one of the "weapons" built by the business of terrorism. There is alot of money that goes into the process of enticing, molding, and brainwashing these prospective weapons. If Bin Laden was a true believer of his B.S, and terrorism was fueled by ideals, then he would have been on one of those jetliners.

Since when do leaders do the fighting? Bush or any of his cabinet haven't gone to Iraq and fought alongside the soldiers they are leading. So by using your logic, Bush doesn't believe the BS he is saying.

To his cause, Bin Laden has other roles. Everything from fund raising, to recruitment to propaganda.

You left out, recruiting six year olds.

See bolded. That there would be a general term

Just detailing the recruitment statement.

It didn't really need it. We all know Bin Laden isn't someone we'd want to invite over for afternoon tea.

[NavarreMan 10]

Simple causality. How hard is it to understand? If they want one thing to happen then they want the obvious result. Much the same as if you were to say (just making a point here) "I think the police should be disbanded" you would by logic want criminals to take over. Much the same for the people that want us to lose in Iraq. If they want us to lose they want the terrorists or Iran to win or they want Iraq to sink into a bloodbath. Its the only possible outcomes.

I disagree. That sounds like false dilemma to me. You can't present a situation as if there are only two options (when there could be an infinite number of other options as well) and then say option B is clearly bad, so option A must be correct.

Can you conceive of an outcome that is favorable to the USA is we lose? I will give my definition of losing before you ask. Leaving Iraq without a stable government in place that can assure it's own security.

If the opposite of losing is having a more stable government and better security then what they had before we invaded them is much closer to the opposite of your definition of losing than what they have now.

I find it interesting that a person who favors isolationism the way you do feels a "favorable outcome to the USA" is more important than a favorable outcome to the country we destroyed. If we had better immigration policies and practices and concentrated more on protecting our borders why concern ourselves with the chaos we have created in the middle east? What difference does it make to you if they blow each other up? Isn't that actually furthering your cause?

The main man we're after is not in Iraq. What are you trying to prevent in Iraq? Them killing each other? Them killing us? What is the goal as you see it?

Your arguments just don't make sense to me.

Personally I think we lost this war when we decided we needed to be civilized about it. And when we didn't stay focused.

Edited October 9, 2007 by NavarreMan

[GaryC 7]

If the opposite of losing is having a more stable government and better security then what they had before we invaded them is much closer to the opposite of your definition of losing than what they have now.

I find it interesting that a person who favors isolationism the way you do feels a "favorable outcome to the USA" is more important than a favorable outcome to the country we destroyed. If we had better immigration policies and practices and concentrated more on protecting our borders why concern ourselves with the chaos we have created in the middle east? What difference does it make to you if they blow each other up? Isn't that actually furthering your cause?

The main man we're after is not in Iraq. What are you trying to prevent in Iraq? Them killing each other? Them killing us? What is the goal as you see it?

Your arguments just don't make sense to me.

Personally I think we lost this war when we decided we needed to be civilized about it. And when we didn't stay focused.

How did you get the idea I am an isolationist? You must be confusing me with someone else. It makes a great deal of difference to me if they "blow themselves up". We have an obligation to them to finish what we started. To not finish it would be a disservice to them and dangerous to us. To suggest that letting them sink to a bloodbath is furthering my cause is just your weak attempt to insult me.

[Ban Hammer 14,200]

I am interested to know what the going rate for a suicide bombing is? A place in heaven might seem a good deal to an idealist, but it's not such a good business proposition in my opinion.

Suicide bombers are merely a weapon, one of the "weapons" built by the business of terrorism. There is alot of money that goes into the process of enticing, molding, and brainwashing these prospective weapons. If Bin Laden was a true believer of his B.S, and terrorism was fueled by ideals, then he would have been on one of those jetliners.

Since when do leaders do the fighting? Bush or any of his cabinet haven't gone to Iraq and fought alongside the soldiers they are leading. So by using your logic, Bush doesn't believe the BS he is saying.

To his cause, Bin Laden has other roles. Everything from fund raising, to recruitment to propaganda.

that looks familiar