Its offensive in that this guy is welcoming another disaster on a nation to justify support for this administration abuses and failed policies, at home at abroad. He is invoking the spirit of fear and terror to control the masses and bend them to the neocons will, to stifle debate (debate that has it occurred before a lot of lives would have been saved). But in a atmosphere full of fear, ignorance and false bravado/patriotism the U.S. went against the wrong targets, in the wrong place, at the worse possible time and now it is stuck, betting everything on a pair of 2s and hoping nobody calls its bluff.

He wants another attack (as it seems so many others in the Far-Right) so that America lin...

Its offensive in that this guy is welcoming another disaster on a nation to justify support for this administration abuses and failed policies, at home at abroad. He is invoking the spirit of fear and terror to control the masses and bend them to the neocons will, to stifle debate (debate that has it occurred before a lot of lives would have been saved). But in a atmosphere full of fear, ignorance and false bravado/patriotism the U.S. went against the wrong targets, in the wrong place, at the worse possible time and now it is stuck, betting everything on a pair of 2s and hoping nobody calls its bluff.

He wants another attack (as it seems so many others in the Far-Right) so that America lines behind them again, silent and trembling. But disasters have happened, Katrina, the Twin Cities and they have seen how the daddy party is quick to exploit them but not resolve them.

Its sick to invite such a thing. And the probabilities of such a thing happening have not decreased, no amount of political hackery, rubber stamping and violations to the letter and spirit of the Constitution have changed that.

Taking offense at a true proposition is intellectual bullying. It seeks to shut up via politically correct coersion. Why do you not want to discuss the merits of the article? The reason you do not want to discuss the merits is because they are true. You just don't like the fact that someone is speaking this truth, so you attempt to limit people from saying these things by feigning offense. Instead of trying to shut people up, why not comment on the validity of the comment.

I do not agree with the comments in the clip. I think we will be fine without another 9/11. There are enough people that know the facts of the world to deal appropriately. The fact that we need to have support from the wi...

Taking offense at a true proposition is intellectual bullying. It seeks to shut up via politically correct coersion. Why do you not want to discuss the merits of the article? The reason you do not want to discuss the merits is because they are true. You just don't like the fact that someone is speaking this truth, so you attempt to limit people from saying these things by feigning offense. Instead of trying to shut people up, why not comment on the validity of the comment.

I do not agree with the comments in the clip. I think we will be fine without another 9/11. There are enough people that know the facts of the world to deal appropriately. The fact that we need to have support from the wish-washy ignorant people does not ring true to me. History has always been guided by a plurality or a morally convicted minority. Nothing need be different in this case.

However, the comments professing some offense at this proposition are ridiculously unreasonable.

So if you find something offensive and say so, that constitutes "intellectual bullying"?

Yes. Saying you are offended is meaningless. And, it is meaningless for exactly the reason I stated above.

The only reason why he would want another 9/11 is to prove a "point",
that those infatuated with false paradigms like the so called "War on
Terror" should be given a free hand to do whatever they want, no matter
what that may be. They want us to "destroy the village in order to save
it" and that is something I will not accept.

OK, so now we have a confession. An honest point and not fake offense. This is actually a line of disagreement and a point of clarity. You do ...

So if you find something offensive and say so, that constitutes "intellectual bullying"?

Yes. Saying you are offended is meaningless. And, it is meaningless for exactly the reason I stated above.

The only reason why he would want another 9/11 is to prove a "point",
that those infatuated with false paradigms like the so called "War on
Terror" should be given a free hand to do whatever they want, no matter
what that may be. They want us to "destroy the village in order to save
it" and that is something I will not accept.

OK, so now we have a confession. An honest point and not fake offense. This is actually a line of disagreement and a point of clarity. You do not believe there is a threat. He does.

He believes what he thinks is inevitable will help embolden the effort. You believe he is hoping for the inevitable.

He believes the Left is wrong. You believe the Right is evil.

Just say it. Don' t pretend to be offended.

I never said there was no threat. I also did not say the Right (in general terms, but then again the current right is really far-right not center-right) is evil. I do say that terms like the so called "War on Terror" are inaccurate and misleading.

The fundamental distinction here is how do you deal with the real threats, not the hyped ones. You located the networks, you starve them of support, you squeeze them and turn the nodes against each other (nothing kills an underground movement like distrust and disagreement). You get into those caves and slit their throats, you capture them and haul them to open court so that everyone can see how pathetic they are and see them fall before the migh...

I never said there was no threat. I also did not say the Right (in general terms, but then again the current right is really far-right not center-right) is evil. I do say that terms like the so called "War on Terror" are inaccurate and misleading.

The fundamental distinction here is how do you deal with the real threats, not the hyped ones. You located the networks, you starve them of support, you squeeze them and turn the nodes against each other (nothing kills an underground movement like distrust and disagreement). You get into those caves and slit their throats, you capture them and haul them to open court so that everyone can see how pathetic they are and see them fall before the might of a fair and open justice system.

The current approach to the problem by this goverment and many of the scary cats that make up the 20% supporters of this Presidency (even when this President turns their backs on them again and again) is like calling an Arc Light mission (thats a B-52 strike) where a sniper bullet would do. And on top of that they end up bombing the wrong place and the wrong people to boot!

The fundamental distinction here is how do you deal with the real threats,

No, the fundemental distinction is the recognition of a threat and the resolve to do something. The lack of resolve is dangerous. The man's point in my opinion is more about garnering the reader's imagination for (and you are right about this) motivational reasons. However, the motivational reasons are not evil. They are to strengthen the resolve and obtain a level of agreement so that action can be taken.

Now, like I said. I do not agree with the guys assessment and I certainly have a huge problem with people on the right engaging in these senseless leftist tactics of using appeals to emotion to gai...

The fundamental distinction here is how do you deal with the real threats,

No, the fundemental distinction is the recognition of a threat and the resolve to do something. The lack of resolve is dangerous. The man's point in my opinion is more about garnering the reader's imagination for (and you are right about this) motivational reasons. However, the motivational reasons are not evil. They are to strengthen the resolve and obtain a level of agreement so that action can be taken.

Now, like I said. I do not agree with the guys assessment and I certainly have a huge problem with people on the right engaging in these senseless leftist tactics of using appeals to emotion to gain a point. But, that is the world we live in. - absent reason.

It *IS* offensive for someone to hope for a devastating attack on our country. I am not trying to silence him (nor do I wish him to be silenced) - he has every right to say what he wants. But the right he has to say something *that* offensive is the same right that lets me say how offended I am.

As for a "response" to his comments, I think that his idea is not only wrong, but highly counterproductive. At this point, another attack would not, in my opinion, make us more united - it would tear us further apart. The country is so polarized right now, especially over issues regarding the "war on terror," with some who believe that the war in Iraq is making us safer from future terror atta...

It *IS* offensive for someone to hope for a devastating attack on our country. I am not trying to silence him (nor do I wish him to be silenced) - he has every right to say what he wants. But the right he has to say something *that* offensive is the same right that lets me say how offended I am.

As for a "response" to his comments, I think that his idea is not only wrong, but highly counterproductive. At this point, another attack would not, in my opinion, make us more united - it would tear us further apart. The country is so polarized right now, especially over issues regarding the "war on terror," with some who believe that the war in Iraq is making us safer from future terror attacks and others believing that we've missed the target entirely (since Iraq had *nothing* to do with the attacks on 9/11 - even President Bush has admitted as much), and that - though our actions - we've not only made ourselves more vulnerable, but we've helped create a whole new generation of terrorists ready - maybe even eager - to kill Americans.

If "another 9/11" were to occur, that split would likely become a complete break. Each side would blame the other - Iraq war supporters would blame those who oppose the Iraq war, and say that their "cowardice" made the enemy bolder and let them know it would be safe to attack; those opposed to the war would counter that the way the administration has responded to 9/11 has not only fanned the flames of hatred the terrorists have for us, but by doing things like failing to finish the job in Afghanistan, telling the terrorists to "Bring 'Em On," tying up most of our military in Iraq, blowing the cover of a CIA operative (and exposing any contacts she had, rendering them useless) who was heavily involved in monitoring the spread of WMDs in the middle east, and allowing bin Laden to escape and find shelter in Pakistan, we're really not all that serious about waging this "global war on terrorism."

(more in the next post)

Then we'd have the competing accusations from those who support the administration's course - saying that we're not given Bush the tools he needs to find and fight the terrorists - and those who oppose it - saying that Bush isn't making good use of the tools he already has and that there are a number of things that could be done under existing laws that would actually make us safer (for example: better explosives-detecting scanners at airports, tighter security at ports and shipyards, hiring more translators who are fluent in Farsi and Arabic to help sift through the intercepts we're already getting - I mean, what good will it do to be able to eavesdrop on even *more* conversations between p...

Then we'd have the competing accusations from those who support the administration's course - saying that we're not given Bush the tools he needs to find and fight the terrorists - and those who oppose it - saying that Bush isn't making good use of the tools he already has and that there are a number of things that could be done under existing laws that would actually make us safer (for example: better explosives-detecting scanners at airports, tighter security at ports and shipyards, hiring more translators who are fluent in Farsi and Arabic to help sift through the intercepts we're already getting - I mean, what good will it do to be able to eavesdrop on even *more* conversations between potential terrorists if we can't get the transcripts transcribed quickly enough?)

After 7 years of this administration, not even another 9/11 would reunite the country the way Mr. Bykofsky (who wrote the column I clipmarked) envisions. As I said in my original response, posted at my blog, what we really need right now is leadership that can get us out of Iraq and start focusing on getting the *real* criminals and terrorists - starting with bin Laden.

(Here's my original response at my blog - I'm copying it here for reference.)

I cannot believe the audacity of Stu Bykofsky's suggestion that what America needs is "another 9/11!"

He seems to think that the problem with the war is that it's taking too long for the American attention span and that if terrorists struck again in the US, it would "remind" everyone of why the war in Iraq is so vital.

Except that it isn't.

Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Prior to our attack and occupation of Iraq, al Qaeda was did not have a presence there. In fact, Osama bin Laden had made it clear that he, too, opposed Saddam Hussein and wanted him overthrown, though for very different r...

(Here's my original response at my blog - I'm copying it here for reference.)

I cannot believe the audacity of Stu Bykofsky's suggestion that what America needs is "another 9/11!"

He seems to think that the problem with the war is that it's taking too long for the American attention span and that if terrorists struck again in the US, it would "remind" everyone of why the war in Iraq is so vital.

Except that it isn't.

Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Prior to our attack and occupation of Iraq, al Qaeda was did not have a presence there. In fact, Osama bin Laden had made it clear that he, too, opposed Saddam Hussein and wanted him overthrown, though for very different reasons than we did. The war in Iraq has done nothing but create a fertile breeding ground for new terrorists and a new cause for which those terrorists can take up arms. It has killed more Americans than the actual 9/11 attacks did, and injured - often critically and permanently - thousands more.

We started off ok by going into Afghanistan, where we knew bin Laden had been given a safe haven, but pulled out of there before the mission could be completed and virtually abandoned the Afghani people in a broken country with virtually no *true* leadership. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the Taliban has been enjoying a resurgence - and if we keep ignoring the situation in Afghanistan, we'll likely wind up right back where we started.

Suggesting that what America needs is another terrorist attack - killing thousands of people - goes so far beyond offensive that I don't even know how to describe it. We don't need another 9/11. What we NEED is leadership that will find a way to get us out of Iraq and enable us to - at long last - go after the actual criminals.

America's disapproval of the war in Iraq is *not* that we've lost site of the target - its that the administration attacked the WRONG target in the first place. A second 9/11 won't do anything to change that.

Willhelm,

If you want me to take ANYTHING you say with any level of seriousness, then you need to go back, read ALL of my responses before passing judgment on whether or not it's rational (or anything else for that matter.) In your initial post here, you said you wanted me to

comment on whether the prospect is true or not instead of feigning some irrational offense?

That is what I did, and now it's your turn. If you opt not to, then you don't need to bother to post any further comments and I won't bother giving what you say any consideration (though, of course, you are still free to comment if you wish - all I'm saying is that it'll be pointless as far as I'm concerned.)

Y...

Willhelm,

If you want me to take ANYTHING you say with any level of seriousness, then you need to go back, read ALL of my responses before passing judgment on whether or not it's rational (or anything else for that matter.) In your initial post here, you said you wanted me to

comment on whether the prospect is true or not instead of feigning some irrational offense?

That is what I did, and now it's your turn. If you opt not to, then you don't need to bother to post any further comments and I won't bother giving what you say any consideration (though, of course, you are still free to comment if you wish - all I'm saying is that it'll be pointless as far as I'm concerned.)

Yes, I restated that I am offended by Bykofsky's article because I am - no "feigning" involved. In addition to that, however, my response explains that while I think he's likely right that there is still a danger from terrorism (I think there will likely ALWAYS be a danger from terrorism), I disagree with his proposition that "another 9/11" would unite us. In my opinion, "another 9/11" would actually divide us even further than we already are.

If you want to have a conversation on the merits of Bykofsky's ideas, I'm all for it - but you need to respond to what I actually said first, not just dismiss it out of hand.