Perspective without Pictures

[tw]

Extremists are driven by their emotions; not by logical thought. That defines a person of low intelligence. But an extremist movement becomes dangerous when it can recruit moderates - where most intelligent people reside. How does an extremist recruit moderates? Create instability. Get adversarial extremists to create emotion. Emotion is the enemy of logical thought. History is so full of extremists who became powerful or who created great destruction simply by creating such instability as to make a moderate's position untenable.

The emotional could not read through that long dry paragraph. But the logical have long since learned those boring concepts. Can you deal with current news logically or do you seek an emotional response.

There is an alliance between all extremists - even when those different extremists are enemies. They both use their extremist adversary to recruit moderates. That has happened in Israel. If we were smart, we would have been empowering moderates at the expense of those extremists. But we didn't. Instead we have this new president who tacitly supports extremists by undermining moderates. Are we paying for those mistakes?

We don't know who created today's news, but targets of Middle East extremists have finally and successfully been attacked. Where else in the world have we created so many emotionally distressed people by advocating the elimination of their basic human rights? For moderates, today, the day of the Camp David Accord should have been a celebration. To extremists such a bin Laden and Sharon, today's event celebrates another destruction of moderate positions. Extremist on all sides profit from today's news.

Previous terrorist attempts were classic examples of mental midgets. One returns to a truck rental center to reclaim his deposit. Another panics and sweats while crossing into WA using the wrong route during December. Why can so many do it right so often?

Four planes were hijacked. Other attempts may have been aborted. That means multiple hijackers on each plane including a pilot familiar to 757/767 cockpits. Multiple weapons. The hijackers had to disable or kill the flight crew AND to fly the 757/767. Hijacking every plane without problem required special training and planning. Weapons had to be smuggled through three airports without detection - again extensive training and planning. Flights chosen to be in the right place at 9:00 AM. All this performed without using electronic communication, using many people, and no leaks.

It is not just advance training and intelligence that makes this possible. Emotion in intelligent minds makes each participant that much more dedicated, that less likely to leak plans, and that more likely to succeed.

So what is this emotion that drives moderates to execute extremist plans? What is this emotion that makes intelligent people do something so absurd? What is this emotion that made success so likely? Clearly moderates have been so wronged as to attack their most obvious enemy. Why did we become the enemy of moderates?

Would these logical thinking people been so emotionally involved three years ago? No. In the Middle East, America has gone from being an honest broker to - well even among American friends in Egypt, they are shocked by the act but then say America is getting what their attitude deserves. Yes, our attitude has changed.

Our leadership cannot see the bigger picture or even provide leadership. A leader would have returned to Washington rather than fly from rabbit hole to rabbit hole, indecisive, until suddenly while safely in Nebraska, he realized he was not being presidential. This is a decisive leader? No. This is also the leadership that drives moderates to support extremist positions. This is a leader who has cooled US relations with almost every nation while encouraging or empowering Middle East extremists.

Extremists are now extremely dangerous because we have chosen to side against moderates. Instead of supporting a moderate such as Arafat, we have instead chosen to support an extremist and proven genocidal masochist - Ariel Sharon. We support a man who single handedly drove the world closest to nuclear war. By supporting extremists - Sharon - we have empowered the extremist factions of Islamic Jahed, Hesbolla and Hamas to recruit more moderates. We have destroyed any moderate support among from great Rabin's Israeli suppporter. We have played right into the hands of instability - and have done this mostly in the past year.

Today's news may have been created by other geographical extremists. But we must decide up front to think logically or empower extremists - think emotionally.

Is Sharon responsible? Just like he is not responsible for the murder of Rabin. His history: creates instability, forces others to suffer, plays on those emotions, and profits from its effects. He has successfully achieved head of nation by such tactics. He has successfully destroyed the Oslo Accords as well as UN Resolution 242 (which even many American Jews refuse to acknowledge).

Is Yassar Arafat the source of such problems. Of course not. We have conveniently driven his people into the arms of extremists. We have struck another dagger into the heart of a great man - Rabin. Now we are so emotional as to seek revenge rather than understand how we got here. We got here because we openly endorsed the slow massacre of an Arab people. We even walked out of a conference that defined Isreal's right wing extremists as racists - which is Ariel Sharon.

We should not be pushing moderates to unite with extremists. But that requires leadership with intelligence. Instead even the US has a leader elected, in part, by religous extremists. We have a leader that flys around the country like a scared, befuddled rabbit.

Today's events will be repeated if we continue to attack all others in the Middle East and to support right wing, extremist, "we want the entire West Bank and screw UN242" Israelis. Clinton had the intelligence to distance himself from Sharon. Bush has told all extremists that we will support right wing, anti-humanity extremists and their proven genocidal masochist: Sharon.

[Nothing But Net]

I'm not usually a tattle tale, but this is war.

I don't like your attitude, or your rhetoric.

Bye bye, motherfucker!

[Nothing But Net]

Putting down the United States is not the way to make friends around here at this point, dipshit.

I suggest you lay low for awhile..

I really, really, do!

NBN

[jaguar]

er............

[Nothing But Net]

I used to use a quote from Arafat for my sig, but no more.

'tw' is a terrorist sympathizer, that is clear. He shouldn't be posting no more!

The militia meets soon, I suggest in Philadelphia, where the real deal started originally.

I expect the bounty on bin-Laden will go to half a billion dollars at least, even if he wasn't responsible, which everyone knows he is.

Let's go get that motherfucker!!!

I'm good to go for that.

NBN

[jaguar]

wow man calm down..
sure i agree bin laden should be brought to justice. The kind that involved a steel tube, a length of barbed wire and powerdrill (its called a rear admiral - take a guess) but seriously man u need to calm down. I know u got friends who may be in touble but chances are they'll be fine. Staticicaly its a 0.004% chance that they were involved. Take an oversized alcaholic drink(pref wiskey or brandy for such an occasion - single malt wiskey if you have any), sit down and take a break man.

Out of question - What happened in Philadelphia in the past milita-wise?

[leif]

Originally posted by Nothing But Net
'tw' is a terrorist sympathizer, that is clear. He shouldn't be posting no more!

Censor an opnion because it is unpopular? Threaten others for having conflicting opinions? It sounds like NBN has forgotten what this country supposedly stands for.

Personally, I think it is refreshing to hear something other than "bomb the arabs". Even though I don't agree with you entirely, tw, I thank you for your thought provoking post. Please, pay no mind to the "la-la-la I only hear what I want to hear" sentiment expressed by NBN.

[Nothing But Net]

I finally saw the video of people jumping thousands of feet to a certain death.

This was indeed, very distubing to me.

I can think of no reason, let alone a political position, which could justify this.

Do you have any answer for this, 'tw'?

[Griff]

I don't agree with everything tw said but I agree with his sentiment, if not his predictable response. My view is what the mainstream press likes to misrepresent as isolationist. If anyone here has read Blowback by Chalmers Johnson or simply pays attention to our foreign policy this attack was inevitable. Our constant political and military meddling overseas has created a huge constituency for extremists in Japan, Korea, Indonesia, South America, the Balkans, Africa, and yes the Middle East. Now Bush has been backed into a corner by the terrorists and the revenge minded here in the states. If he, Clinton, or Pappy Bush had done the sensible thing and ratcheted down our overseas exposure earlier Jr would be in a position to make some choices. Unfortunately he can't change course now or he'll be giving terrorists a green light and opening himself up for attacks from the full width of our tiny political spectrum.

I pray we don't pick a convenient scapegoat and create a larger constituency of haters.

Mind your civil liberties folks, given the choice between pulling in our overseas horns (and the profits attendent to that posture) and turning up the police state our empty headed political leaders will attempt to trade freedom for security.

I have relatives, who I haven't heard from, in the fire department down there so don't give me any crap about not being passionate about this.

[Undertoad]

NBN, now is not the time to go witch-hunting. That plays into the hands of the terrorists, IMO.

What tw offers is an opinion of why this sort of thing comes about. This doesn't make him a sympathizer. He also criticizes our leadership. This, too, doesn't make him a sympathizer.

Going after people who are just stating unpopular opinions weakens our resolve, doesn't strengthen it. This country was founded partly on the idea that dissent is allowed. If we give up those sorts of principles, the terrorists win.

We are in a difficult position right now. We have a ton of built-up rage and no clear target for that rage. They said this is our Pearl Harbor, but in Pearl Harbor they knew who the enemy was. Now is the time to be careful and not allow that rage to be directed inappropriately. If we direct our rage inappropriately, the terrorists win.

If you believe that tw is wrong, the right approach is to discuss it with him. If he cannot be convinced that your words are correct, perhaps others who are reading can. In any case we are all sure to learn from each other and that is what it's all about.

[serge]

Two quick reocurring thoughts I have..

1) New civil rights limitation will be steamrolled and will take hold (de facto or de jure). Paranoid /. base is about to greatly expand.
(Ex: How about cameras everywhere but in your private property?)

2) Please continue to establish laws that will have the state (all people) forced to support (taxes) religions.. thus factionalizing the society to the point of....
(This is especially evident to me in Brooklyn where I live.. religiously/ethnically divided communities {usually 1st gen. immigrants}.. if you do not force the melting pot process to occur though secular instituions but instead publically fund religious institutions.. well you do the math)

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
We are in a difficult position right now. We have a ton of built-up rage and no clear target for that rage.

Exactly the point of the original post. Undertoad has probably said much more than he realized.

NBN has accurately displayed our greatest enemy with multiple, foul language posts. Emotion, especially right now, will create disasters larger than anything small like a WTC collapse. It is time to start taking stock of who are the extremists, who are the moderates, and who really is the enemy. IOW now more than ever is the time to start thinking dry, boring, and logical. Now is the time for leaders to act more as leaders.

Bush has made a difficult decision - he had committed us to declaring war on someone if that 'someone' nation can be defined. It is the stunning, backbone chilling statement equivalent to one made during WWII - we will accept nothing short of unconditional surrender. To the emotional, that WWII statement and Bush's cabinet meeting decisions today means little. To the emotional, Bush's statement was only stating the obvious - it appeared redundant. Bush's statement is not obvious if one really understands the extend of what he has said.

He may have declared the US as attacked which means Nato, OAS, and other unilateral alliances with Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Pakistan but to only name a few may also have to do same - or dissolve their once cordial US relationships. If so, Bush will test all the goodwill and great relationships that Bill Clinton constructed throughout the 90s. Remember that most of the world regards Israel as a racist nation who is using legal nicieties to destroy a people with US approval. Calling in the cards on so many other nations may come with a price (although it will happen) - pulling out support for a right wing extremist and racist government in Israel - which actually would be a good thing for the US.

Again, this assumes that the attackers are Middle East. But then it is only in the Middle East that the US supports extremists. In other parts of the world (the Balkans, Myrammar, S America, etc), the US provides no support or comfort for extremists. Look to where we have supported extremists to find the most likely suspects.


It is rediculous to think that we have become too overextended. We are involved in most every nation whether we like it or not for many reasons: 1) we need the commodity trade, 2) we conduct business with those countries, 3) we promote concepts such as Human Rights, humanitarian aid, etc, 4) we need support of those countries neighbors just to operate things such as basic intelligence or even a pre-emptory raid. In short, it is not excessive involvement with those other nations that makes us a target.

What makes us a target is when we support extremists. The most glaring example: Rabin's Israel would have been a great ally and friend. It is possible that Sharon's Israel may have detected the coming attack but preferred to stay silent since Sharon's Israeli government prospers by creating instability. (Why not - remember the USS Liberty? Sharon was also operating in the area then.) Sharon's Israel are extremists that can result in more terrorist attacks on the US. We need to be careful of supporting extremist like Sharon at the expense of moderates such as Peres. We may have in lower Manhatten an example of what happens when we support extremists with genocidal histories.

Dry, hard, boring logical though is what we need today - not the foul language, repetitive rhetoric of the emtional.


Bush's statement of war may define a whole new direction for the new world order. Many countries may reassess the dangers of being an US friend and ally if Bush screws this up. It is an unstable condition - a condition that extremist love and profit from. Emotional tirades only give aid and comfort to extremists. Instability using emotional responses only helps extremists.

Appreciate the danger of emotional extremist rhetoric; simply look at Sen Santorum's (PA) comments in Congress today. He calls for war and to disregard justice. IOW he calls for a lynching both of the suspects and of the concepts that built America. Again, Santorum's remarks demonstrate the danger of emotional responses. Those people are dead. Those 3 towers are gone. Bury with them the emotion so we can recognize what are good logical responses. Don't waste good internet bandwidth with useless four letter comments. They only demonstrate the low intelligence of its extremist author.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by tw
Our leadership cannot see the bigger picture or even provide leadership. A leader would have returned to Washington rather than fly from rabbit hole to rabbit hole, indecisive, until suddenly while safely in Nebraska, he realized he was not being presidential. This is a decisive leader? No. This is also the leadership that drives moderates to support extremist positions. This is a leader who has cooled US relations with almost every nation while encouraging or empowering Middle East extremists.

Realistically though, tw, from a government perspective, the safety of the President is first and foremost in a situation like this. Truth be told, even if Dubya WANTED to head back to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, the Secret Service would not have allowed that. If it were made clear that the President was heading immediately back to Washington, it could have possibly caused more chaos. At 10am yesterday morning, the country was reeling--the government was scrambling to restore some type of order. The Pentagon, which is only about 10 miles from Andrews AFB had just been attacked by a large airplane. And we are talking about the most important figure in the world, second maybe to the Pope.

Extremists are now extremely dangerous because we have chosen to side against moderates. Instead of supporting a moderate such as Arafat, we have instead chosen to support an extremist and proven genocidal masochist - Ariel Sharon. We support a man who single handedly drove the world closest to nuclear war. By supporting extremists - Sharon - we have empowered the extremist factions of Islamic Jahed, Hesbolla and Hamas to recruit more moderates. We have destroyed any moderate support among from great Rabin's Israeli suppporter. We have played right into the hands of instability - and have done this mostly in the past year.

From your past posts, I know of your intense dislike of Sharon. But just what has the US done in the past 8 months to coddle Sharon? If anything, the US has had to play the role of parent to Sharon.

Is Yassar Arafat the source of such problems. Of course not. We have conveniently driven his people into the arms of extremists.

In the past decade, Arafat has become a man torn--on one hand, the Palestinians yearn for a homeland, which is hard for him to refuse. On the other hand, Arafat has been "playing by the rules". Engaging in peaceful discussion over the Middle East.

The only way, IMO, to "solve" the Middle East situation is the one thing that cannot be done--remove the religious aspect of it.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by jaguar
Out of question - What happened in Philadelphia in the past milita-wise?

The birthplace of the United States is here in Philadelphia. The Declaration of Independence was written here in 1776, and Philadelphia served as the US Capital until 1800. Militias were raised here and across the original 13 colonies to fight the British after declaring our independence.

[tw]

Originally posted by sycamore
Realistically though, tw, from a government perspective, the safety of the President is first and foremost in a situation like this. Truth be told, even if Dubya WANTED to head back to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, the Secret Service would not have allowed that. If it were made clear that the President was heading immediately back to Washington, it could have possibly caused more chaos. At 10am yesterday morning, the country was reeling--the government was scrambling to restore some type of order.

When Air Force One made a left turn for protection at Barksdale AFB, that was prudent. But by the time AF1 left Louisiana, 1) all airplanes were grounded, 2) any airplane left in the air would be immediately challenged by fighters or Navy Aegis ships, 3) AF1 flew at altitudes above any commercial flight (actual altitude still remains classified), and 4) any approaching aircraft would first be confronted by F-16s probably with missiles hot at pilot's discression. Long before George Jr arrived at a SAC base, any threat was long gone.

A leader would have recognized his leadership in Washington was necessary when in Louisiana. Indeed, remember 3 Mile Island? When Carter and wife arrived, there were expectations that an explosion was expected within those hours. Technicians were on the verge of bolting for their lives. Carter's arrival, as a true leader, was instrumental at finally settling wild fears among the experts. IOW a leader is the man who ends the chaos - as Carter did in 3 Mile Island, as Johnson did to hurry back to Washington from Dallas, and as Kennedy did during the Cuban Missile Crisis (the movie Thirteen Days) when he took personal command of Naval movements. Where was George Jr when chaos required his presence?

No wonder the White House speculates that it and AF1 was a target. Reporter's questions in that live press conference made White House statements look silly. Reporters asked most of above four questions and received stonewalling answers. Now we know the flight path into the Pentagon. The White House cited the flight path as proof. But an ABC news reporter bluntly said the flight path disproves White House statements. Why did the White House probably lie? Maybe George Jr's people recognized how un-Presidential his actions were. He failed to demonstrate leadership when it was required.

Of course his decision then was trivial in comparision. Tougher decisions come in the next few weeks. George Jr must hear it from his own people. He must be a more decisive leader.

George Jr has his father's legacy. Thank goodness for Margaret Thatcher who put a backbone (while in Denver) into George Sr. The exact quote, as George Sr reported it, remains inbedded in my mind. "This will not stand." Only then did George Sr become decisive and go against advise of his Sec of Defense (Cheney). If only George Jr had his own Iron Lady. The man must find his backbone because even his own staff should have seen that no threat existed. Tougher decisions remain. The President must personally call most every world leader - especially all Middle East leaders. He must find his backbone. This next week and month is where leadership will be measured. If this is indeed "war", then it begins with actions by top management - George Jr.