I guess this is a sort of poll...

[j2k4]

Confused?

Why?

I am merely trying to assay how you would deal with a terrorist if it were in your power to decide, while getting around the issue of who is/isn't a terrorist, depending on cause or origin.

This is not difficult, The.

what does government affiliations have to do with anything?

Your beloved U.N. has no no entree to deal with terrorists, as it is made up of member-nations.

It has no utility with which to address the problem of terrorist groups, and that is precisely why terrorist groups function as they do.

[vidcc]

In order to provide complete context, here is Bush's full response:

Some are skeptical that the war on terror is really a war at all. Senator Kerry said, and I quote, "The war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation."

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: I disagree. I disagree. Our nation followed this approach after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. The matter was handled in the courts and thought by some to be settled. The terrorists were still training in Afghanistan. They're still plotting in other nations. They're still drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. (Applause.) With those attacks, the terrorists and supporters declared war on the United States of America -- and war is what they got. (Applause.)

Still hooked on the creative editing, I see.

What he meant was that terrorism could not be combated effectively by merely hauling the perpetrators into court.

Please stay on point.

I didn't quote th 1000 other words that came before or after that either... they were irrelevant.

now (remembering Bush's straw man addiction) show where Kerry said "we should haul them into court".... Kerry was not saying "serve them legal papers. He said the most effective way to catch them is intelligence-gathering law enforcement operations and not military operations. So if you want to talk about contex.........




you have to locate the terrorist to catch the terrorists....

which has been the most effective in preventing actual attacks?

a) intelligence-gathering law enforcement operations.

b) invading Iraq.

Has military action stopped the attacks?

[GepperRankins]

what does government affiliations have to do with anything?

Your beloved U.N. has no no entree to deal with terrorists, as it is made up of member-nations.

It has no utility with which to address the problem of terrorist groups, and that is precisely why terrorist groups function as they do.

the definition of terrorist is someone who attacks civilians for political gain isn't it. nothing more, nothing less.


would the UN ever talk about terrorism? i'd guess everybody would want everyone else to be diplomatic. but thier own enemies would be special cases that need more of a heavy handed talking to.

[j2k4]

In order to provide complete context, here is Bush's full response:

Some are skeptical that the war on terror is really a war at all. Senator Kerry said, and I quote, "The war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation."

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: I disagree. I disagree. Our nation followed this approach after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. The matter was handled in the courts and thought by some to be settled. The terrorists were still training in Afghanistan. They're still plotting in other nations. They're still drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. (Applause.) With those attacks, the terrorists and supporters declared war on the United States of America -- and war is what they got. (Applause.)

Still hooked on the creative editing, I see.

What he meant was that terrorism could not be combated effectively by merely hauling the perpetrators into court.

Please stay on point.

I didn't quote th 1000 other words that came before or after that either... they were irrelevant.

now (remembering Bush's straw man addiction) show where Kerry said "we should haul them into court".... Kerry was not saying "serve them legal papers. He said the most effective way to catch them is intelligence-gathering law enforcement operations and not military operations. So if you want to talk about contex.........




you have to locate the terrorist to catch the terrorists....

which has been the most effective in preventing actual attacks?

a) intelligence-gathering law enforcement operations.

b) invading Iraq.

Has military action stopped the attacks?

You are being evasive.

The point is, you cannot deter terrorism by threat of a court-action, which tactic Kerry was touting on the occasion of his original comment.

No one disputes intelligence as a prime, perhaps the prime tool to fight terrorism; this, though, as differentiated from law-enforcement, which has very little to recommend it as a mechanism for fighting terrorism.

[vidcc]

You are being evasive.

The point is, you cannot deter terrorism by threat of a court-action, which tactic Kerry was touting on the occasion of his original comment.

No one disputes intelligence as a prime, perhaps the prime tool to fight terrorism; this, though, as differentiated from law-enforcement, which has very little to recommend it as a mechanism for fighting terrorism.

How am i being evasive?, i would suggest you are trying to misrepresent the point.

Where did i say or did kerry say Law enforcement was a deterrent to terrorists? I believe my word is "prevent"

Kerry said intelligence operations are the most effective method and law enforcement agencies are the most effective at carrying this out..... The evedence so far suggest he is correct.

Bush seemed to dispute.

Has militarily invading a country that didn't attack us detered any attacks?

Has it prevented any attacks?.

Is it possible it cause a few?

As to

"law-enforcement, which has very little to recommend it as a mechanism for fighting terrorism."

I suggest you read you own post here

[j2k4]

How am i being evasive?, i would suggest you are trying to misrepresent the point.

Where did i say or did kerry say Law enforcement was a deterrent to terrorists? I believe my word is "prevent"

Kerry said intelligence operations are the most effective method and law enforcement agencies are the most effective at carrying this out..... The evedence so far suggest he is correct.

Bush seemed to dispute.

Has militarily invading a country that didn't attack us detered any attacks?

Has it prevented any attacks?.

Is it possible it cause a few?

As to

"law-enforcement, which has very little to recommend it as a mechanism for fighting terrorism."

I suggest you read you own post here

I think you'd best do some further digging.

Kerry's original commentary was along the lines of, 'We have laws with which to address terrorism', as in, cops-n-courts; 'we have merely to make terrorism unlawful, and the problem is solved'.

My post is a paean to "intelligence agencies", as is plainly discernable.

I have taken pains to indicate the difference, and I feel this is plain to anyone who reads the thread.

I cannot account for your lack of cogitation.

[j2k4]

Your beloved U.N. has no no entree to deal with terrorists, as it is made up of member-nations.

It has no utility with which to address the problem of terrorist groups, and that is precisely why terrorist groups function as they do.

the definition of terrorist is someone who attacks civilians for political gain isn't it. nothing more, nothing less.


would the UN ever talk about terrorism? i'd guess everybody would want everyone else to be diplomatic. but thier own enemies would be special cases that need more of a heavy handed talking to.

I can't make sense of that last sentence, sorry.

Would you provide some support for your definition of terrorism, please?

It seems to me a bit limited/limiting.

"...nothing more, nothing less."

Indeed.

[vidcc]

I think you'd best do some further digging.

Kerry's original commentary was along the lines of, 'We have laws with which to address terrorism', as in, cops-n-courts; 'we have merely to make terrorism unlawful, and the problem is solved'.

I'm sorry but you are just posting the "spinned version". You can disagree with what someone said, but if you are going to do so you should use what he said...not what someone else said he said.

My post is a paean to "intelligence agencies", as is plainly discernable.

I have taken pains to indicate the difference, and I feel this is plain to anyone who reads the thread.

I cannot account for your lack of cogitation.

Just who and what do you think those "intelligence agencies" are?

[j2k4]

I'm sorry but you are just posting the "spinned version". You can disagree with what someone said, but if you are going to do so you should use what he said...not what someone else said he said.

My post is a paean to "intelligence agencies", as is plainly discernable.

I have taken pains to indicate the difference, and I feel this is plain to anyone who reads the thread.

I cannot account for your lack of cogitation.

Just who and what do you think those "intelligence agencies" are?

So, in other words, Kerry says something, Bush says something in response, and only you are capable of sussing what they truly meant?

I see.

See, the thing is, I remember Kerry's comment; he made it relative to the '93 WTC bombing, and he wasn't talking about the CIA, y'know?

Now, if you don't know the difference between, say, the NYPD, and the CIA...

Also, since the FBI and Scotland Yard, or MI5, or whoever, while not sharing jurisdiction, cooperate on an international basis by way of intelligence/information sharing, with external (ex. CIA) involvement...really-it should be clear even to you.

[vidcc]

Ok live in your world of spin, I'll stick to reality.

law enforcement agencies are obviously just the local sherrif.