Damn Kevin - You are three steps ahead of me all over the place tonight. I guess your MoJo is stronger than mine tonight.

I remember Andrew Sullivan trumpeting the "Flypaper Strategy" way back when. It was such an illogical thought, that there was a finite number of terrorists in the world, and that if we could lure them all to one country, we could conveniently kill them all there.

Yes, that was the actual argument, I'm not leaving anything out! I still read Sullivan occasionally, but after Flypaper I realized that columnists often write about subjects they have limited knowledge of.

Hmmm. This flypaper theory seems very WASP-like. Gotta find the nest! Destroy them before they reproduce! AS IF there were an *exact number* that didn't change that should be trapped and eliminated...

But you don't know whether the higher number would have been lower compared to a higher number if Bush hadn't attacked Iraq. It's that fuzzy math you liberals love so much. A higher lower number isn't the same as a higher higher number, and you have to compare the lower higher number that we have under Bush's bold and decisive leadership to the higher higher number that might have been if we'd had a wimpy president like AlGore or John Frenchy Kerry. And if Bush weren't hampered by the elitist and treasonist MLM you can be sure that lower higher number would actually have been a lower lower number. If the liberals hadn't ruined our public school system I wouldn't have to explain all of this to you.

I remember when the State Department used to produce these figures every year so we could see how ineffective, not to say inane, the "flypaper" idea is. What happened to that?

Oh, yeah. The administration realized how stupid and ineffective, not to say dishonest, it made their prognostications look!!!

Hock --

LMAO. You're hitting your stride. Perfect.

Hock --

You ass. I'm still laughing.

I swear, Hock, you hit all the points. Excellent. And I'm stone cold sober.

Hello, Frequency K.

I'd suggest a proper anti-terrorism strategy. Of course, it would have been nice to have started that without the distraction of an unrelated war to complicate things and kick the wasps nest open. But now we've got it, how about a kind of ISG-type comprehensive policy to minimize the damage done and minimize the fall-out and start an INTELLIGENCE driven -- yes, I'm looking at the administration and that means you, GWB -- campaign to identify organizations, cells and individuals; infiltrate as possible, gather information; make surgical interventions; divert recruits and dry them up; give people a better alternative than blowing themselves and others up. Even give them a reason not to hate the US quite so much.

I know that's not butch enough for you, Frequency K, but that's how we did it fairly effectively for fifty-five years until a small group of idiots who thought they were geniuses decided they could make the world a better place (I'm being charitable there).

Well I thought I was sober.

Frequency Kenneth get extracted by a UFO?

Well, since Bush is the Worst President Ever, are we surprised?

It always seemed like a batshit insane theory to me:

"I want to go to America to wage jihad, but I cannot get there. I would take the bus, but I am busy fighting the Imperialists here. Damn them! They keep me so busy - just look at my todo list! Death to America!"

I dunno. If you apply the fly-paper strategy the other way round and think of it in terms of fly-papering US forces, it looks to have been pretty successful.

Too bad, you are so right, ss.

I remember Bill Maher, no bleeding heart, repeatedly asking on the late PI, "Isn't there the danger that we're doing eaxctly what Bin laden wants us to do in that part of the world?"

Al Qaeda couldn't come to us, except in the occasional symbolic outburst, and they didn't have the resources to dislodge Saddam. But, voila, the chimp does it all for him and we foot the bill, in flesh, cash, and credibility. It was a no-brainer for them, and we still have our no-brainer in charge.

A Colombian diplomat told a friend of mine that violence in Colombia had gone down significantly the last few years because all the US advisors and mercenaries that used to run the paramilitary groups there are now in Iraq. So the flypaper theory is correct after all!

Please. I wouldn't trust the Administration counting terrorist attacks, nor would I trust RAND (who collected the data) nor would I trust "liberals" who exagerrate the terrorist threat (much as the Repubs do) in their quest for a narrative that allows them to criticize the Prez yet still look all butch and hawkish.

From that report: "the rate of jihadist attacks on Western interests and citizens around the world (outside of Afghanistan and Iraq) has risen by a 25%, from 7.2 to 9 a year, while the yearly fatality rate in these attacks has increased by 4 percent from 191 to 198."

18 American civilians (not counting civilian contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan) have been killed by jihadist groups since the war in Iraq began in 2003. Four American civilians were killed in attacks attributed to jihadist groups in the period between 9/11 and the Iraq War.

So, 1.5 years pre-war: 4 deaths from "terrorism"
In four years since 2003: 18 deaths

But go ahead "liberals". Continue to legitimate the Republican frames by wetting your pants over a NON-EXISTENT terrorism problem, just so you can whine that the Admin is prosecuting this war incompetently.

How about a war on the neo-con "liberal" hawks in our media?

Luci, you are right. But in defense of Kevin and the "liberals", I would say that pointing out that the other side's arguments fail even by its own metrics does not necessarily mean that you accept those metrics.

Hock's number theory and craigie's just look at my todo list! split the prize tonight.

One more piece of evidence that this is the most criminally incompetent Administration in the history of the United States. These next two years cannot go by quick enough....

Actually, the "Iraq 101" feature does not mention what the difference between a Shia and a Sunni is.

Try scrolling down the page and click the first link. It's titled "from Allawi to Zarqawi" which I figured meant it was a kind of A to Z description. Anyway, under the big map that comes up you can find about 6 grafs on this. Sometimes you have to read further than the title page.

Better a bunch of weak-minded idiots blowing themselves up and running into bullets than a bunch of weakminded idiots breeding a bunch of weakminded idiots.

And getting arrested. And being tracked.

shorter aaron: Them members of that other tribe are all subhuman; better they die than have children. I guess too it's good that you guys managed to blow a whole bunch of them up in the process of taking out the place and still continue to do so at a pretty good clip. I guess some people are more God's children than others.

aaron, you are a racist through and through.

For those of you who like stats - this is what America is thinking.

57% believe “The Iraq War is a key part of the global war on terrorism.”

57% “support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.

50% want our troops should stay and “do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country” while only 17% favor immediate withdrawal

56% believe “Even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.”

53% believe “The Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw the troops from Iraq.”

Orwell, cite your sources, please. Otherwise, it looks like you're trying to hide something. You know that "but verify" thing.

But this is wonderful, Kevin. Aren't you invested in arms and oil? Halliburton says, Thank you very much.

but 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! etc

So -- what do we DO about it?

Orwell's source? His own ass.

"So -- what do we DO about it?"

(1) Withdraw

(2) Repent, and humble ourselves.

Not necessarily in that order . . .

Orwell's source is a poll by Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican pollster with a press release titled "PUBLIC OPINION STRATEGIES MOURNS REPUBLICAN LOSSES, CONGRATULATES MANY INDIVIDUAL WINNERS IN TOUGH RACES on its homepage, that they are touting over at Powerline.

Needless to say, the poll numbers are unimpeachable.

Flypaper is nasty stuff. Too bad our forces in Iraq are all tangled up in it. As a claim for effective counterterrorism policy, it is utterly insane.

Clearly the problem was that we never instituted Fafnir's plan:

: So what's the plan?
A: The plan is to stick with the plan! If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Q: Why do we need the plan?
A: To stop terrorists like Saddam bin Laden from building another World Trade Center in Iraq - just so they can blow it up again.
Q: That would be horrible! How is the plan stopping them?
A: The plan is the central front in the war against terror! We invaded Iraq to get Iraqis to fight us in Iraq so they wouldn't fight us at home.
Q: The plan has cleverly lured them to where they already were, only in terrorist form!
A: Now you're catchin on!
Q: Hey, I know! We should invade like a small cardboard box. When all the terrorists attack there, we'll jump out of the way, tape up the box, and throw it in the ocean! No more terrorists!
A: Hey! No peeking ahead at the plan!

You folks have to decide if there is a war out there or not. Larry Johnson says no. Of course that was a month before 9/11 so maybe he's not the best source. The greatest risk right now (If you exclude John Edwards' brilliant theories) is the fall of Pakistan. Mushareff is isolated and the Paks are descending into jihadi hell. If he goes, Afgahnistan will be indefensible. That should kick off the war of civilizations Huntington worried about. It may be that the Iraqis are too damaged from Saddam or Islam itself is incompatible with a modern state. Turkey is sliding into a radical Islamic course that may require the army to take over. Radical Islam is reaching a peak from a start in the 1920s with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Sayyid Qutb visited the US in the 1940s and decided we were the great satan. All this was well before George Bush was presented with the problem of Saddam. Maybe you should be reading old Bill Clinton speeches now. This will not be over in 2008 and wishing will not make it so.

It is not just about election tactics; no matter what John Murtha says.

i stand behind the statements i made to orwell and apologize for the redundancy of my handle.

Radical Islam is reaching a peak from a start in the 1920s .... All this was well before George Bush was presented with the problem of Saddam.

1. What in hell does Saddam have to do with radical Islam?
2. How in hell was GW presented with 'the problem' of Saddam?

And yes, radical Islam is a problem.

But boy oh boy do you need to get out a bit, Mike - out of the States, that is. You seem to have some weird fever swamp in there. I feel so sorry for your more sane countrymates

I am becoming pessimistic in regards that I think all the "small" disputes over the genesis and the ultimate meaning of the present Iraqi war will be knocked aside this summer by a cataclysmic escalation of an Iran versus U.S.A. nature.

Why? Because of President Putin's recent speech in Munich. A few years ago Bush thought that "Pootie" and he could be buddies because we had similar problems facing Islamic radicalism, Russia in Chechnya and the focus of U.S. attention would come to be in Iraq.

But while the world press was occupied giving the actions of the U.S. in Iraq microscopic attention in every detail, they gave the Russian in Chechnya a nearly complete pass while Putin put down the Chechen rebellion in a way that a Western power would never be allowed to do.

As a consequence, President Putin now has a free hand to be the friend of the most vile Islamic extremists again because they have a gangster's agreement: you leave me alone and together we will gang up on someone else. Russia has much of the same tacit understanding with China--Russia will sell China all the advanced military technology they can pay for (which is a lot!) and China will never invade the resource-rich Far East regions of Russia because they know they will get nuked by a missile force that is still considerable.

But the immediate problem is that Ahmadinejad is the wrong person to buck up with the support of a near-super power.

Too soon we are going to be into a new age where the bitter inter-American debate over the democracy project in Iraq will be blasted away by a conflict much more intense--something perhaps not seen since W.W. II.

Further, it is not far-fetched to predict that the U.S. will be in the short run over-whelmed by whatever Iran decides to do, perhaps so much so that an alarmed Israel will decide "it is now or never" and jump in against Iran. Mr. Olmert in Israel has a 14% approval rating as a result of really screwing up last summer, but even he is astute enough to know that there are moments in history when you have to go "all in" or kiss your nation good-bye.

Umm..yeah.. not minding when people so prone to terrorism as to actually commit it for rather riduculous reasons get caught, fail, die, or be stopped is racist. Now I know, thanks.

If you apply the fly-paper strategy the other way round and think of it in terms of fly-papering US forces, it looks to have been pretty successful.

This is absolutely correct.

OBL has won -- GWB gave him everything he asked for -- and the wingnuts are too stupid to see it.

"I want to go to America to wage jihad, but I cannot get there. I would take the bus, but I am busy fighting the Imperialists here. Damn them! They keep me so busy - just look at my todo list! Death to America!"

Priceless!!!

I like how mike cook apparently has no idea that the Chechnya separatist movement is aligned with al quaeda (ie, Islamic extremists), the ignorance of which allows him to conclude that Putin is a friend of Islamic extremists.

And, oh yeah, the world press has covered Chechnya just fine -- it's the US press that hasn't, but then the US press narcissisticly never covers anything that isn't directly related to the US. That is nothing new.

Smarter wingnuts, please.

Oh fer goshsakes!

Iran is an economic basket case, with a constitutionally limited President who, in addition to being a nutcase is increasingly unpopular. He does not have the power to order Iran to nuke or otherwise attack anyone. At this this point it is highly unlikely that he could even win reelection.

One thing that could bolster him is continued hostility from the United States.

He does not have the power to order Iran to nuke or otherwise attack anyone.

Furthermore, the Ayatollah has issued a fatwa against building nukes, a fact that never seems to make it into the US press.

Here's another unbiased poll that Orwell, Hawk, and Kenneth would love--

If You Love the President . . .
Take this poll. Don't worry, you can sign with an X--

1. How do you think the war in Iraq is going?

a) Splendidly

b) Very well, indeed

c) Quite nicely, thank you

d) Pretty darned okay

2. How would you rate the president's handling of Hurricane Katrina?

a) Masterful

b) Super

c) Four stars

d) Very, very good

3. What is the biggest problem facing America today?

a) People criticizing President Bush

b) Discrimination against shotgun enthusiasts

c) Sissies

d) The Jews

4. How do you pronounce " America "?

a) Murka

b) Other

5. What is your first name?

a) Elmer

b) Lucille

c) Other

6. What is your preferred method of deflecting alien mind-control beams?

a) An aluminum-foil hat

b) Replacing metal tooth fillings with composite

c) Rhythmic chanting while naked

d) Shooting into the air toward suspected mother ships

7. What is your primary source of news?

a) Cow behavior, caterpillar activity, tree-moss changes, etc.

b) What my common-law spouse heard at bingo

c) Homeland Security color-alert changes

d) The Bible

8. How many cars does your family own?

a) Three to five

b) Six to nine

c) Ten to 14

d) Fifteen or more

9. Of those cars, how many are not on blocks in your yard?

a) One

b) None

10. If you were a Renaissance-era poem, what meter would you be in?

a) Iambic pentameter

b) Anapestic hexameter

c) Trochaic septameter, with a single spondaic foot

d) Just kidding! Go on to the next question.

11. What is your favorite sport?

a) Huntin'

b) Fishin'

c) Rasslin'

d) Hot dog-eatin' contests

12. What is your current field of employment?

a) Hubcap brokerage

b) Scrap metal redemption

c) Driveway resurfacing and refrigerator repair and auto detailing and septic tank servicing

d) License plate manufacturing at a correctional institution

13. If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?

a) I'd like to be able to be weighed without the use of a forklift and truck scales.

b) I'd like to own my own TV, instead of renting.

c) I'm okay with just the two teeth, but I'd like 'em to touch.

d) I'd like to be smart, like George W. Bush.

Please send your answers to Tony Snow, Office of the Presidential Press Secretary, Washington , D.C.

Oh, please give us more of POS's spin numbers.

At their website, they praise their work last November 7 in helping a few dog catchers get elected.

"Yeah, we may have been crushed as a team, but did you notice how well our cheerleaders looked?"

You guys did check the article at Truthdig on how the wonderful strategizing has affected the disposition of the other world nuclear superpower while the irrelevant entertainment was going on, yes ? ( Fight "terror" by chasing mirages in the desert when you know who has the live silos. Great job ! )

"You folks have to decide if there is a war out there or not."

Define "war," please, and identify the protagonists.

"Larry Johnson says no. Of course that was a month before 9/11 so maybe he's not the best source."

LOL... Idiot, the events on 9/11/01 no more defined or declared a "war" than did the events of 4/19/95.

"The greatest risk right now (If you exclude John Edwards' brilliant theories) is the fall of Pakistan."

Really? There is no greater risk anywhere in the world? Have you mentioned this to the Bush administration? They seem to think that Pakistan is our ally and a model of the very kind of government we are trying to develop in Iraq.

"Mushareff is isolated and the Paks are descending into jihadi hell."

Gee, I wonder which side of this debate actually discussed this problem first?

"That should kick off the war of civilizations Huntington worried about."

It should? Why?

"It may be that the Iraqis are too damaged from Saddam or Islam itself is incompatible with a modern state."

Gee, maybe you should have mentioned that to George W. Bush (or to your younger self) before we invaded the country.

"All this was well before George Bush was presented with the problem of Saddam."

And just what "problem" was that?

"Maybe you should be reading old Bill Clinton speeches now."

Why? He's hardly an example of infallibility on foreign policy.

"This will not be over in 2008 and wishing will not make it so."

Nice strawman, since nobody has ever pretended it would be.

"It is not just about election tactics; no matter what John Murtha says."

And nice ad hominem attack. Did you actually have anything to contribute to this discussion or did you just want to mindlessly and pointlessly rant?

there are terrorists in Iraq too

Southern state Republican Congressperson talking point. The terrorists in Iraq wear US military uniforms. Those other fighters are members of Iraqi factions engaged in a civl war.

I saw the Today Show has adopted Mother Jones '101' naming of supposed educational journalism stories. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Even NPR had a series last week attempting to 'educate' its listeners about the Shi'a and Sunni religious differences. I think it is a prelude to war, because most of the 'knowledge' imparted casts the Shi'a as radicals who believe in the Hidden Imam. It is humorous that the believers in the anti-Christ and the Rapture use the Hidden Imam as a reason to call attention to their adversaries' irrationality. Humorous in a gallows way.

Umm..yeah.. not minding when people so prone to terrorism as to actually commit it for rather riduculous reasons get caught, fail, die, or be stopped is racist. Now I know, thanks.
Posted by: aaron

There's nothing particularly heroic or admirable about suicide bombing.

But there's nothing particularly honorable about "collateral damage," Israeli expansionism and ethnic cleansing, and lying our country into a war resulting in >500,000 civilian casualties.

There's nothing particularly different about those people, either. So ... not many people are mourning the lack of reproduction among terrorists -- but I'd really, really like to see GWB, cheney, rumsfeld, kissinger, meyer, netanyahu, and ben-gurion be held to the same standards as arafat.

their westernness doesn't make them unique, and I really don't care about whatever their stated intentions were; their results were identical.

MoJo should be proud. C-SPAN's Washington Journal used their '101' feature this morning to discuss Iraq. I did not see most of it and wondered where alll of those graphs came from. Usually C-SPAN confines its 'journalism' coverage to the WSJ editorial section.

Well done, although I may disagree with some of the assertions about al Queda in Iraq.

Just in case anyone suspects I have chosen my name to mimic the nickname of Mother Jones magazine, it is a conjunction of 'bro' and 'brujo,' that my brother coined. Brujo was another nickname I had at the time.

There's nothing particularly heroic or admirable about suicide bombing.

The two Iraq Occupation veteran Congressional Medal of Honor recipients both sacrificed their lives to save others by shielding bombs with their bodies. To me their acts are very similar to suicide bombers. Suicide missions by US soldiers are portrayed as heroic in propaganda war movies. Catholics make saints of persons who are martyred. Self-sacrifice to the 'cause' is honored in most cultures. I am not advocating either behavior, but attempting to point out that one side's sacrifice is proof to the other side of their barbarity and unworthiness to be negotiating partners.

The two Iraq Occupation veteran Congressional Medal of Honor recipients both sacrificed their lives to save others by shielding bombs with their bodies. To me their acts are very similar to suicide bombers. Suicide missions by US soldiers are portrayed as heroic in propaganda war movies. Catholics make saints of persons who are martyred. Self-sacrifice to the 'cause' is honored in most cultures. I am not advocating either behavior, but attempting to point out that one side's sacrifice is proof to the other side of their barbarity and unworthiness to be negotiating partners.

A Catholic saint allows himself, and himself alone, to be killed for his faith. A soldier who throws himself on a grenade does so to save his comrades and innocent people. Even the Japanese kamikaze pilots wore uniforms, flew in clearly-marked planes, and attacked only military targets.

The difference between these examples and someone who drives a bomb car into a civilian marketplace, or wears an explosive belt filled with shrapnel and rat poison into a cafeteria or a bus, should be obvious to an eight-year-old.

Where does one go to have this kind of simple moral perception burned out of them? Other than a typical university?

I am not advocating either behavior, but attempting to point out that one side's sacrifice is proof to the other side of their barbarity and unworthiness to be negotiating partners.
Posted by: Brojo

Fair enough ... I would agree to the point that however one views it, it should be viewed consistently regardless of who does it.

Even the Japanese kamikaze pilots wore uniforms, flew in clearly-marked planes, and attacked only military targets.
Posted by: bobwire

If (and when) suicide bombers exclusively target the opposing military, you will likely still call them terrorists.

The propaganda would be obvious to any 8yo.

The GOP believes in due process for terrorists, but only if they first contribute money to the GOP.

Pony up, bin Laden, and Bush will leave you alone.

Come to think of it, bin Laden must have already ponied up, since Bush has done everything possible to avoid capturing or killing him.

bobwire: The difference between these examples and someone who drives a bomb car into a civilian marketplace, or wears an explosive belt filled with shrapnel and rat poison into a cafeteria or a bus, should be obvious to an eight-year-old.

So what about uniformed soldiers who deliberately surround themselves with children by offering candy and other treats?

Or uniformed soldiers who round up thousands of innocent civilians and send them off to prison for an indeterminate amount of time, often to be tortured?

Or uniformed soldiers who blow up civilian buildings in civilian areas merely on the possibility that there might be some terrorists inside?

Or what about a government (several conservative US administrations) that trains and pays people who set off bombs in civilian areas, use WMDs against their own people and neighboring countries, invade neighboring countries without cause, rape nuns, or murder and torture tens of thousands of innocent civilians?

Mike K: You folks have to decide if there is a war out there or not.

There are lots of wars going on around the world and lots of conflicts or alleged conflicts that are not wars, even though mindless lemmings like you, Mike K, call them wars, like the war on the religious right (what a hoot!) or the war on drugs, etc, etc, etc.

So, which "war" are you talking about, Mikey?

They do not give the Congressional Medal of Honor to the flyboys who drop white phosphorus bombs on civilians or to the snipers that shoot old ladies in the face while attempting to draw water from a well. Still, the pilots and snipers are treated with honor and respect by their society. Same goes for the political entities that only have suicide bombers to kill their percieved adversaries, even if they are civilians. I really cannot understand the difference between these two types of killers, except for the despair that drives one type to purposely sacrifice their life.

Nads, I was not criticizing your post that I quoted from, just using it as a starting pont. There is nothing heroic about any of the fighters or altruists, who will sacrifice their lives to save fellow soldiers while in a battle to kill others.

Better a bunch of weak-minded idiots blowing themselves up and running into bullets than a bunch of weakminded idiots breeding a bunch of weakminded idiots.

Umm..yeah.. not minding when people so prone to terrorism as to actually commit it for rather riduculous reasons get caught, fail, die, or be stopped is racist. Now I know, thanks,

When you talk about 'breeding' you are talking about a population, a people, not about individuals within a population who choose to use terrorist tactics. 'Prone to' is also addressed to the group. Yes, you are racist. Conflating the two does not get you off the hook.But you don't even see it, do you?

aaron: Let me add that if your comments were not addressed to Arabs as a whole (that is how they're worded but perhaps you had a different intent), then I apologize. I'm not one for throwing around the 'racism' word easily.

But I'm so sick of hearing crap about Arabs - they're the one group that it seems perfectly acceptable in polite company to make racist statements about. I hear it from American, from European, from Israeli friends and acquaintances. Even in elementary school in Canada I remember one teacher whose phrase for students who made stupid mistakes was 'you stunned Arab', a phrase accepted as perfectly normal. Try inserting the word 'Jew' or 'Gypsy' into that phrase instead and imagine a teacher using this phrase his whole career without once being reprimanded. So perhaps (perhaps) I was a little trigger happy.

So how's the Iraq war doing at keeping terrorists tied down so they can't make trouble elsewhere?

I thought the idea was that the anti-American terrorists couldn't make trouble in the U.S. Increases in terrorism in other parts of the world, such as Wesstern India and Northern Uganda, are not that relevant to the flypaper strategy.

American Hock on February 21, 2007 at 1:20 AM

well said. Some of the others seem to have thought you were writing in jest. They just didn't get it.

Qlipoth: A Colombian diplomat told a friend of mine that violence in Colombia had gone down significantly the last few years because all the US advisors and mercenaries that used to run the paramilitary groups there are now in Iraq.

You are as funny as American Hock. You left out the effects of the new (some years ago) president's strategy.