John Kerry was stupid enough to try that, and he had his ass handed to him.

No, the better route is to deconstruct the "terrorism" construction entirely. People are smarter than you think (I know, I can't believe I am saying that), and it is beginning to completely break down.

The politics of fear and the power of nightmares must be exposed, not reinforced by arguing that we're more better at fear than the Republicans are.

In addition to the one posted just below (and thank you to that poster, by the way), try something like this (you can thank me later):

The American People reject the Republicans' -- the "Party of No" -- and their paralyzing the Congress and the nation, killing the life-saving jobs legislation the President wants passed to help everyday, struggling Americans, and the Economy.

Note:

1. "American People:" Take this back away from the criminals; say it early and often; rinse and repeat. WE represent the American People. State it as such.

2. "Party of No:" Three words that every fucking Democrat in the land should repeat over and over, in five different languages, backwardsa and forwards, even in their sleep. It is stigmatizing them for a change with a short appellation that will be rememeberd.

3. Graphic Terms and Terminology: Use "paralyze" and "kill" and "life-saving." These words evoke images and are retained in people's minds.

4. "Economy:" Only the shittiest, most corrupt Congressional leadership could lose an issue as good as the economy, but the traitors Reid and Pelosi have gladly and eagerly done so. The stimulus package, its success, and the connection between government investment (NOTE: NOT "SPENDING" BUT "INVESTING" take this back from the criminal GOP as well) to improving the Economy (Stupid) over and over should be tied to Americans, because they are hurting all day and every day.

It is almost an axiom. Whether you are talking about individual relationships, or nations, anything in between, and the laws governing both and all of these, the first option is always a peaceful overture, a peaceful attempt. It is, indeed, almost an axiom.

Then if there is no reconciliation or redress of grievances, or, more importantly, if such a reconciliation or redress is ruled to be out of the question by one side, then it appears, if the grievance is sufficiently grave, that human beings resort to violence.

I am left asking myself why that isn't true here? (Perhaps, more importantly, why hasn't anyone else asked these questions?)

Instead of asking ourselves why these "terrorists" don't fit the usual definitions, which seem to have been provided by the media or by the government as an "Other," why aren't we asking ourselves what their grievances are? What propelled them to act in this manner?

Part of the terrorism cycle, it seems, is the declaring a certain set of beliefs to be illegal or immoral, unable to be discussed. That may be what then propels these people to violence. Then, after that happens, instead of asking the most logical question -- what was propelling this person to violence? -- we have been conditioned to ask "how" this person could be come "extreme."

According to the Power of Nightmares, we are conditioned to think that it involves something so dangerous, so evil, that even we as adults cannot know about it. Only the government and those in authority, like some sort of parents, can know about it and deal with it. We, even we as adults and more fully functioning than those dysfunctioned in authority, must be treated like children, and protected. (At least that is what they are telling us.)

The fear is so palpable and ubiquitous as it pours from every media orifice that we cannot even discuss it, the real "it" that is, the real issues.

Yet, since we still haven't examined what this "extreme" is, we only exacerbate the whole cycle of violence.

And then, of course, comes the refrain from those who perhaps implicitly seek to continue the cycle of violence, "don't negotiate with terrorists," although they negotiate with them all the time, just not on the subject of the real grievances that are creating the problem.

I think Barack Obama's speech in Cairo was only the very first chip at the wall in deconstructing this cycle of violence. It was a fascinating moment.

My bet would be that the government or those in similar positions of authority do know what is driving these poor idiots to "extremism" and violence. My bet would be that they are all too familiar with what is going on, but that they just don't want to tell us, or have it widely known. It better serves their interests to keep the people beholden as children, easily manipulated and controlled.

And that could be perhaps the most frightening realization of all.

. . . is the birth of terrorism.

The evidence posted establishes a pattern where civilians are killed in airstrikes on suspected terrorists. Once the news (more evidence) is out completely on this one, the pattern will likely be no different here.

Someone recently here on the boards was inquiring about the legality of air strikes, and it go me thinking:

1. Aside from all of the civilians we know are innocent dead, you are already assuming that the even the suspects (if correctly identified) are guilty. True guilt has never been (and likely never can be) established. For those in favor of the strike, this becomes rather convenient as they insist guilt be assumed. Of course, as a legal matter, this is exactly wrong: guilt must never be assumed, but proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. And, aside from the presumption (or insistence) of guilt, even the "guilt" at issue here is legally false. This kind of "guilt" involves only some association with a group of people. What is almost a half millennium of settled criminal law jurisprudence requires intentional and causal connection by a specific defendant to a crime; there cannot be guilt solely based on association with a group of people. Again, the very type of act in question -- an air strike -- may prevent these legal questions from being answered. In a sense, the evidence is conveniently destroyed.

So you can see once you delve into it, the layers of illegality only compound. And this is why there is such an effort to change (or eviscerate) laws that have been settled for centuries. And perhaps also why the media refuses to report these changes, much less question or analyze them.

But my understanding is that it is governed by a body of common law and then backed up by the Geneva Conventions.

It goes something like this. If you are engaged in war, and there is a critera for that, then you enjoy a privilege from criminal prosecution. This is because the actions you are taking would otherwise be proscribed. For example, you are shooting or stabbing people, which would constitute assault and battery, and killing people, which would constitute murder.

If captured, the laws of war offer certain protections from criminal prosecution. The Geneva conventions also require that certain protocols be followed with prisoners of war. But if you are not engaged in war, then you fall by default within the realm of criminal law.

What the neo-nazi-cons did is try to fabricate a third possibility, one that never existed anywhere in jurisprudence. They called it an "unlawful combatant." This would not enjoy a privilege from the laws of war, yet not be prosecuted under criminal law.

And the reason for this is that someone prosecuted by the United States under criminal law must be prosecuted in accordance with Due Process of law under the 5th, 6th and other Amendments to the Constitution.

The neo-nazi-cons want to try to fabricate a new exception for bedrock jurisprudence, and do it for only one small group of ethnic people, based on their racist views of Arabs and South Asian Muslims.

Aid to Pakistan does not equal aid to the Taliban. First, many nations, including the U.S., at one time aided groups in Afghanistan in its war with the Soviet Union. According to your reasoning, the U.S. is not a "natural ally" of itself, and this fails reductio ad absurdum. That a nation at one time aided the Taliban does not mean that any aid to that nation equals aid to the Taliban.

Second, nations are a bit more complex than your world view seems to permit. Repeating myself here, but most involved in foreign policy and world politics look at how nations deal with one another not as "good guys" and "bad guys," but as very complex states with varying and changing national interests. What is key is weighing these various interests in making complex decisions, and reexamining them as events develop. With these principles in mind, saying "aid to Pakistan will always equal aid to the Taliban" is childish.

Third, I don't think it is really accurate to say that "India has never attacked Pakistan and has shown no intention of doing so except posturing in self defense." Again repeating myself here, there is a history to the struggle between and the birth of these two nations, side-by-side. This struggle also involved a colonial power in Great Britain. To view one or more of these as "all good" and the other as "all bad" does violence to the reality of these national struggles, and the real peoples involved.

Fourth, as explained, it is important to view the various institutions and interests of other states in foreign policy. To the extent India has a secular, multi-ethnic and diverse democracy with an independent judiciary, assuming your statements to be true, then this should be supported. What is dangerous in your oversimplified view is that supporting India in this requires, at the same time, the opposing Pakistan in all things, or referring to a whole people as "terrorist." This has been used by Neoconservatives to justify their launching unprovoked wars and to commit war crimes (remember the fabrications regarding "weapons of mass destruction"). Rather, the elements of Pakistan that include a secular and multi-ethnic democracy should be nurtured, not launched wars against.

I am glad that I had a chance to break down some of your posts here. All too often the sort of knee-jerk, black-and-white hysteria you propose is too loud for actual common sense reasoning and enlightened discussion to take place or be heard. All too often the "us" and "them" takes the place of a weighing of complex interests across different peoples and states, their interests, and a cool-headed and even-handed approach to international relations.

For that, if for nothing else, your posts may be worth something.

The Right Wing Hate Cult will be spewing pro-Big Insurance media 24-7, and the sheeple will repeat it and repeat it and repeat it and repeat it. They will never get the message that Obama stands for them?

Without the Fairness Doctrine, how do we do it?

How do we do it?

For the last time, STOP WORRYING ABOUT HOW THINGS LOOK. That is the corporate media mindfuck working on you -- not reality. Resist it, and know many, many others have broken its hold.

I suppose one could say it is our fate.

But I cannot describe how encouraged I am. I actually feel that there may be hope for us.

And hope is a funny thing. When we are without it, we seem to have nothing. But so little of the stuff goes such a long way. When we have hope, and this candidate seems to inspire hope, we can still accomplish anything.

Still.

Anything.

their power through extraordinary violence, including wars of unimaginable death, destruction and horror.

Then some of the disempowered begin to mouth the same words about the taboo against violence, as you see here.

But the fact of the matter is that violence is not wrong in every circumstance. This has been argued compellingly by philosophers for millenia.

They were waiting to spring it on us and demand swift passage without debate -- a "clean" bill -- just like we were fed the Nazi Patriot Act that suddenly appeared as a tome from nowhere right after September 11.

The parallels are interesting.