Binary thinking at its finest. Only two possibilities to consider.


Are you sure you want to describe this process as "thinking?"

Dave Hall wrote:
Sometimes that's all there is. Are you familiar with Occam's razor?

Yep. Very good Dave. Either you're with us, or you're against us...
intensely paranoid psychosis, logically justified.

DSK

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:37:07 -0400, DSK wrote:

Binary thinking at its finest. Only two possibilities to consider.


Are you sure you want to describe this process as "thinking?"

Dave Hall wrote:
Sometimes that's all there is. Are you familiar with Occam's razor?

Yep. Very good Dave. Either you're with us, or you're against us...
intensely paranoid psychosis, logically justified.


That is your interpretation and subject to your own flawed reasoning.

Let's think about the choices we have. You could be:

A. With us, in that you support the elimination of world-wide
terrorism by whatever means necessary.

B. Against us, which means that you feel that active terrorist groups
killing innocent civilians is acceptable behavior in a civilized
world.

C. Neutral. You want to hide your head in the sand and pretend the
problem will fix itself.

So which are you?

Dave

Let's think about the choices we have. You could be:

A. With us, in that you support the elimination of world-wide
terrorism by whatever means necessary.

B. Against us, which means that you feel that active terrorist groups
killing innocent civilians is acceptable behavior in a civilized
world.

C. Neutral. You want to hide your head in the sand and pretend the
problem will fix itself.

So which are you?

Dave

I'm stunned. Not one of the choices you offered.

According to what you just wrote:

If I am not in favor of carpet bombing the entire middle East with
thermo-nuclear devices (an example of "any means neccessary" to eliminate
terrorism), then my only other choice is to declare that
active terror groups killing innocent civilians........(as opposed to high tech
super powers with thermo nuclear bombs killing innocent civilians)......is
absolutely OK.

Doesn't work for me.

I'm in favor of capturing or killing the individual criminal *******s involved
in terrorist activities, by any reasonable means that won't result in our
creating far more innocent civilian casualties than the
terrorists have already.

I'm not in favor of invading our way through a check list of third world
countries under the guise of "fighting terrorism". (But I bet you already knew
that)

Yes, I know that neocons are all about limiting choices. But you guys have a
ways to go in this country before you can presume to tell me how I must think,
(choice A or choice B).

On 24 Jun 2004 14:20:25 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Let's think about the choices we have. You could be:

A. With us, in that you support the elimination of world-wide
terrorism by whatever means necessary.

B. Against us, which means that you feel that active terrorist groups
killing innocent civilians is acceptable behavior in a civilized
world.

C. Neutral. You want to hide your head in the sand and pretend the
problem will fix itself.

So which are you?

Dave

I'm stunned. Not one of the choices you offered.

According to what you just wrote:

If I am not in favor of carpet bombing the entire middle East with
thermo-nuclear devices (an example of "any means neccessary" to eliminate
terrorism), then my only other choice is to declare that
active terror groups killing innocent civilians........(as opposed to high tech
super powers with thermo nuclear bombs killing innocent civilians)......is
absolutely OK.

You forgot the "hide your head in the sand" choice...... But that
would make it "trinary" thinking.....


I would not want to carpet bomb innocents either. But when the
terrorists are so gutless as to hide behind them as human shields,
what choice would we have?


Doesn't work for me.

I'm in favor of capturing or killing the individual criminal *******s involved
in terrorist activities, by any reasonable means that won't result in our
creating far more innocent civilian casualties than the
terrorists have already.

Very good Chuck! That sounds like the perfect plan. Now all we need to
do is call the Starship Enterprise and have them scan the plant for
the DNA signatures of all the terrorists so that we can beam them all
into a detention cell on some outer world controlled by the Klingons.


Wake up! We haven't yet found OBL, his top henchmen, or the Iraqi
insurgents. The terrorists hide in countries that will not allow us in
to search for them (Pakistan). How do you resolve this? If there are
countries who support the terrorists either overtly or covertly, then
how do we apprehend them? Should there not be, as "Bush the almighty"
has suggested, a price to pay for those countries who aid and harbor
these terrorists? How do you fight an enemy who transcends borders?


I'm not in favor of invading our way through a check list of third world
countries under the guise of "fighting terrorism". (But I bet you already knew
that)

If those countries have been shown to "aid and abed" terrorists, then
do we not have a right to act? If not, then game over, since we'll
never get them. We might as well erect a wall around our country and
hide behind it, and close all of our borders.

Yes, I know that neocons are all about limiting choices.

Conservatives love choices. Guns, Schools, Medical coverage,
Privatized social security, Elections..........

But you guys have a
ways to go in this country before you can presume to tell me how I must think,
(choice A or choice B).

Chuck, it's not that we think there are only 2 choices, it's that
we've already rationalized all the other choices and have discarded
them due to their impracticality. We're not binary thinkers, we're
analytical thinkers.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:

I would not want to carpet bomb innocents either. But when the
terrorists are so gutless as to hide behind them as human shields,
what choice would we have?


Some other choice, perhaps?

By oozing down to the level of the terrorists (killing innocent
civilians), we're no better than they are, and we certainly cannot claim
any higher moral ground.

If that's what we're left with, and if in terms of practicality, we kill
lots of innocent civilians, too, we're not demonstrating much difference
between us and those we go after.

It's so unfortunate we don't seem to have reliable intel or even
reliable Iraqis on the ground in their country, eh?

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:08:30 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

I would not want to carpet bomb innocents either. But when the
terrorists are so gutless as to hide behind them as human shields,
what choice would we have?


Some other choice, perhaps?

I'm all ears. Tell me what that choice is.


By oozing down to the level of the terrorists (killing innocent
civilians), we're no better than they are, and we certainly cannot claim
any higher moral ground.

We don't need to. We only need to win.


If that's what we're left with, and if in terms of practicality, we kill
lots of innocent civilians, too, we're not demonstrating much difference
between us and those we go after.

The difference is we don't kill people for no reason. We didn't fly
airplanes into tall buildings to make a political point. If the
terrorists refuse to follow the terms of war as defined by the Geneva
convention, then they should be the ones responsible for the lives of
the people that they willingly place in harm's way. We still have the
right to pursue the enemy.

What signal does that send to the enemy if we cease pursuing them if
they hide in civilian areas?



It's so unfortunate we don't seem to have reliable intel or even
reliable Iraqis on the ground in their country, eh?


I wouldn't know, and neither do you. Neither one of us has a "need to
know".

Dave

Very good Chuck! That sounds like the perfect plan. Now all we need to
do is call the Starship Enterprise and have them scan the plant for
the DNA signatures of all the terrorists so that we can beam them all
into a detention cell on some outer world controlled by the Klingons.

Or, failing that, we can occupy every country where there ever was, is, or
might someday be a terrorist. To make sure we get them all, we need to kill off
anybody we even suspect, in the least, might have terrorist tendencies.
Probably no more practical than the Starship Enterprise.

Wake up! We haven't yet found OBL, his top henchmen, or the Iraqi
insurgents. The terrorists hide in countries that will not allow us in
to search for them (Pakistan). How do you resolve this? If there are
countries who support the terrorists either overtly or covertly, then
how do we apprehend them?

Bush: Hello, General XYPHAHUANG?

General X: Yes, Mr President! My closest friend and honored ally! How are Laura
and the twin Bushes?

Bush: Fine, general. Seems we have a small problem, however. A group of
criminal terrorists thugs blew up a bunch of
stuff here in the US and killed a helluva lot of innocent folks. Turns out
these criminals are hiding in your country.

General X: Pajukistan does not support terrorism!

Bush: Of course not, and I'm glad to hear you say that. This is a courtesy call
to let you know that we will be sending a few thousand Army Rangers and Navy
Seals into your country by the end of this week.

General X: You mean you are going to invade us? What about the treaty?

Bush: Invade, shamde. This is a law enforcement action. We don't want to
acquire any territory, we don't want to topple your government, we want to
avoid civilian causalties. This is your opportunity to *invite* us to search
for these *******s.

General X: And if I don't choose to invite you?

Bush: Well, in that case we're coming anyway and this is a courtesy call to let
you know to expect us.

General X: This will pizz off my people! I'll be lucky to remain in power! You
can't do this! Don't forget, we've got a nuclear bomb!

Bush: Yes, we can. And we will. There's no doubt that you do not want to start
a nuclear war with the United States. The good news is, you won't need to. You
do have an alternative to our presence, of course. Deliver Osama bin Ladin or
his verifiable corpse to your border within 96 hours. If you can find him, do
so. If you can't we're coming to "help" you.

**************

So, that's how. In my opinion. Beats hell out of calling the Starship
Enterprise or killing every Muslim on the face of the earth, anyway.

On 24 Jun 2004 22:44:36 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Very good Chuck! That sounds like the perfect plan. Now all we need to
do is call the Starship Enterprise and have them scan the plant for
the DNA signatures of all the terrorists so that we can beam them all
into a detention cell on some outer world controlled by the Klingons.

Or, failing that, we can occupy every country where there ever was, is, or
might someday be a terrorist. To make sure we get them all, we need to kill off
anybody we even suspect, in the least, might have terrorist tendencies.
Probably no more practical than the Starship Enterprise.

Binary thinking Chuck. No one has suggested we occupy every country.
But we can be a force for change in the region. Once one country
enjoys the benefits of democracy, it becomes easier to "nudge" the
others. When democracy takes a firm foothold, there will be less and
less need for terrorists.


Wake up! We haven't yet found OBL, his top henchmen, or the Iraqi
insurgents. The terrorists hide in countries that will not allow us in
to search for them (Pakistan). How do you resolve this? If there are
countries who support the terrorists either overtly or covertly, then
how do we apprehend them?

Bush: Hello, General XYPHAHUANG?

General X: Yes, Mr President! My closest friend and honored ally! How are Laura
and the twin Bushes?

Bush: Fine, general. Seems we have a small problem, however. A group of
criminal terrorists thugs blew up a bunch of
stuff here in the US and killed a helluva lot of innocent folks. Turns out
these criminals are hiding in your country.

General X: Pajukistan does not support terrorism!

Bush: Of course not, and I'm glad to hear you say that. This is a courtesy call
to let you know that we will be sending a few thousand Army Rangers and Navy
Seals into your country by the end of this week.

General X: You mean you are going to invade us? What about the treaty?

Bush: Invade, shamde. This is a law enforcement action. We don't want to
acquire any territory, we don't want to topple your government, we want to
avoid civilian causalties. This is your opportunity to *invite* us to search
for these *******s.

General X: And if I don't choose to invite you?

Bush: Well, in that case we're coming anyway and this is a courtesy call to let
you know to expect us.

General X: This will pizz off my people! I'll be lucky to remain in power! You
can't do this! Don't forget, we've got a nuclear bomb!

Bush: Yes, we can. And we will. There's no doubt that you do not want to start
a nuclear war with the United States. The good news is, you won't need to. You
do have an alternative to our presence, of course. Deliver Osama bin Ladin or
his verifiable corpse to your border within 96 hours. If you can find him, do
so. If you can't we're coming to "help" you.

So, if I take this seriously, you are advocating that we ignore the
sanctity of a sovereign nation by committing, what amounts to, an act
of war? How is that any different than what we did in Iraq? Even
though our goal would not be to overthrow the government, they will be
compelled (if for no other reason than to save face) to respond. Do
you not think this would also be interpreted as a battle call for the
unification of our enemies?

Personally I like the idea to some extend, and it is one of my
favorite alternative solutions. But it is not without its own set of
consequences, and will make just as much of a stir in the world
community and we will inevitably be cast as aggressors even though we
are simply pursuing criminals.

Then again, once OBL is alerted that we're coming in after him, he
will bolt across yet another border, and the whole process has to be
repeated.

I actually prefer a more "covert" type of operation where we send in a
crack team of army specialists to "get in, get it on, and get out",
under the cover of darkness. But for some reason, liberals tend to
look with disapproval toward covert operations (That whole "big
brother" thing). This would also require a huge improvement in our
intelligence gathering capabilities, and we all know how democrats
historically rate funding for these agencies.


So, that's how. In my opinion. Beats hell out of calling the Starship
Enterprise or killing every Muslim on the face of the earth, anyway.


How does this solution work any better than what we've done so far?


Dave

How does this solution work any better than what we've done so far?


Dave



It addresses the reality that we were not attacked by a country on September
11th, but by a gang of criminal thugs.

If every time we get attacked by a gang of cirminal thugs we respond by
invading and occupying yet another country, how does that even begin to address
the problem?

As you said, the thugs will just go somewhere else that we're not (currently)
attacking.

Even Bush has said "We cannot prove a connection between Saddam Hussein and the
9-11 attacks", yet our invasion of Iraq is supposed to be this brilliant
response to the terrorist attacks on America. ???
We're defending America against future attacks by letting the culprits run free
while we dink around with a politically motivated side show? Nah.

We can never win this war on terrorism by killing people. Even Tenet
says that to call the war on terrorism a war is incorrect, it is no
more a war than the war on crime or the war on drugs neither of which
will ever have an endpoint.

We have probably increased the number of terrorists 10 fold by
invading Iraq. There are millions upon millions of potential recruits
throughout the world.

The solution to the terrorism problem has been staring us in the face
for 40 years but I'm afraid we are just too blind to see it. We
unconditionally support Israel as they commit what basically amounts
to genocide. We support a cadre of ruthless dictators as long as they
share our interests. At the same time we talk about democracy and free
elections. The hypocracy is so shameful as to render our proclamations
of freedom utter nonsense.





(Gould 0738) wrote in message ...
Let's think about the choices we have. You could be:

A. With us, in that you support the elimination of world-wide
terrorism by whatever means necessary.

B. Against us, which means that you feel that active terrorist groups
killing innocent civilians is acceptable behavior in a civilized
world.

C. Neutral. You want to hide your head in the sand and pretend the
problem will fix itself.

So which are you?

Dave

I'm stunned. Not one of the choices you offered.

According to what you just wrote:

If I am not in favor of carpet bombing the entire middle East with
thermo-nuclear devices (an example of "any means neccessary" to eliminate
terrorism), then my only other choice is to declare that
active terror groups killing innocent civilians........(as opposed to high tech
super powers with thermo nuclear bombs killing innocent civilians)......is
absolutely OK.

Doesn't work for me.

I'm in favor of capturing or killing the individual criminal *******s involved
in terrorist activities, by any reasonable means that won't result in our
creating far more innocent civilian casualties than the
terrorists have already.

I'm not in favor of invading our way through a check list of third world
countries under the guise of "fighting terrorism". (But I bet you already knew
that)

Yes, I know that neocons are all about limiting choices. But you guys have a
ways to go in this country before you can presume to tell me how I must think,
(choice A or choice B).