If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Sounds a lot like Heydrich...
I think cutting back on the CIA is what caused 911.
In it there was a detailed non-biased report on how Germans were not a nation of terrorist lovers but rather a country afraid of entering into yet another armed conflict and how this should not be mistaken as anti-americanism but rather a stance taken from a country that has had its fair share of armed conflict.
It was nice to see a different american perspective on the German view of the conflict and I don't mean the government side but rather the view of Joe Public on the street, who actually support America but would like America to respect their decision to remain outside this particular war.
I presented you, some time ago, with one very in depth article pointing to the much more comprehensive issue of our Foreign Policy hypocrisies and duplicities which lie in my professional opinion behind the global increase in hatred toward our nation.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-050es.html
This article is equally as detailed and outlines much of the "why" of the current threat we now face ourselves...
http://www.bidstrup.com/hate.htm
I fear that until our nation ceases to listen to those who subscribe in the doctirne of lashing out under the pretext of restoring security (whilst actively pursuing their own self interested hidden agendas) and starts examining en masse, the real issues upon which the world is increasingly judging us, we wont see anything less than an increase in terrorism and isolationism, neither of which our nation can endure and yet continue to progress for long.
Republicans are for a smaller government.
The Homeland Security Department is a scaling down in a way. It certainly makes it easier to get rid of people who aren't doing their jobs.
The DHD, to that end, is in no way a scaling down, but an enlragement of the powers of the Federal Government and an erosion of our Consititution and Bill of Rights as well our judicial safeguards.
The DHD itself is the largest Federal Agency ever created, so take my advice and start looking more deeply than the spin you are repeatedly regurgitating.
The problem with both articles is they fail to pay any attention to the nature of terrorism or those who enter terrorism. Nor do they seem to recognize that terrorist groups existed long before any of the actions that they claim are "why". Scotland Yard did an in-depth study on the nature of terrorism, who gets involved and why in the 70s. It is still valid. A number of the CT organizations (SAS, CAG, SASR, GSG9, etc.) worldwide keep an ongoing study and evaluation going in order to have the maximum information on their enemy's psychological state. These studies involve psychiatrists and psychologists doing extensive psychological evaluation. And their conclusions vary greatly from the conclusions of those links above.
In the case of the articles above, neither claims to be an exhaustive analyses of the dynamic of terrorism itself but rather distills in cogent terms a causal record of the increased focus of terrorism toward the US, something which goes beyond the simplistic and paranoid rhetorical offerings of the current administration and its hawkish puppet masters.
Rather than closing our eyes to our own political wrongdoings which have contributed to the rising tide of violent reprisals, we should be prepared to counter the narrowing mindset of those who would have us believe that no self examination is necessary and that the application of force is sufficient to address the problem. This will only spiral us further into a defensive posture and undermine our national capacity for innovative thought and consensus building for which the US had long been recognised. All that is systematically being torn down in favour of arrogant and militant posturing which is straining links even with those who would otherwise be our staunchest allies.
I for one see from my professional perspective validity of much of what these articles point out and suspect that until our foregin policy undergoes a radical re examination, we will be only finding ourselves increasingly isolated and bitter.
So do you.
Both sides offer critiques but no solution. Everyone's happy to say what's wrong, but no one offers credible alternatives, including you.
Solutions must emerge from clearer comprehension of the underlying causes rather than off the cuff quick fixes as we are currently being bombarded with from our respective capitols.
I should have thought you of all people might appreciate that and have a throrough read through what I provided before jumping on me.
I would welcome similar references from Greenie rather than just more non substantive dismissal.
This post, I confess, is relatively atypical. I acknowledge that you have indeed posted links to offer an alternative viewpoint, but would stand by my comments in light of the wider posts in general, where claim and counter claim are predictably vitriolic.
I would equally welcome reference, but I would point to the nature of classification. Much of what you link to occurred some time ago, and the details are released and coming out more lucidly than perhaps those of the present scenario.
As to the underlying causes, well, I think you'll find that the Imperialism thread is a way of examining precisely that.
It is wrong to say that everything good in the world is due to noble America (n government), as perhaps pnj et al. (Greenie, to a limited extent) do.
But it is equally wrong to say that everything bad in the world is America's (government's) corrupt and nepotistic fault as it seems to be that you would suggest.
I would like to see more balance. Rhetoric gets us nowhere. Only by trying to see both sides can we perhaps offer something more than vitriol.
What you think of me or my views on my nations failings to evaluate itself and the actions of its leaders, especially when world issues reach crisis levels as they have, is beside the point.
The time I have taken to offer more than vitriole in this instance deserves more than to be simply dismissed offhand by Greenie, you, or anyone who claims to be interested in enlarging the debate. Otherwise what point offering anything more than the personal slander and vitriole you wish to avoid?
BTW, the above process has worked against numerous terrorist organizations. It will work against Al Queda as well. It is not a quick fix, it takes time.
There's been enough documented movement of Al Qaeda to hospitals in Baghdad that if Saddam isn't actively offering safe haven to them, he's turning a blind eye to them.