I have heard a lot of talk this election year about how some candidates are saying that they will get us out of the war we are in. But I have to think that those people have their head stuck in the sand like ostriches or that they really don’t have a firm grasp on reality. Don’t they know that the war on terror goes back over two hundred years?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

U.S. WAR AGAINST TERRORISTS GOES BACK TO FOUNDING FATHERS
(www.WorldNetDaily.com, 4/27/04)

Most Americans probably think the Islamic terrorists declared war on the United States Sept. 11, 2001. Actually, it started a long time before - right from the birth of the nation. In 1784, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were commissioned by the first Congress to assemble in Paris to see about marketing U.S. products in Europe. Jefferson quickly surmised that the biggest challenge facing U.S. merchant ships were those referred to euphemistically as "Barbary pirates."

They weren't "pirates" at all in the traditional sense, Jefferson noticed. They didn't drink and chase women, and they really weren't out to strike it rich. Instead, their motivation was strictly religious. They bought and sold slaves, to be sure. They looted ships. But they used their booty to buy guns, ships, cannon and ammunition. Like those we call "terrorists" today, they saw themselves engaged in jihad and called themselves "mujahiddin." Gee, does that name ring any bells?

Why did these 18th-century terrorists represent such a grave threat to U.S. merchant ships? With independence from Great Britain, the former colonists lost the protection of the greatest navy in the world. The U.S. had no navy - not a single warship. Jefferson inquired of his European hosts how they dealt with the problem. He was stunned to find out that France and England both paid tribute to the fiends - who would, in turn, use the money to expand their own armada, buy more weaponry, hijack more commercial ships, enslave more innocent civilians and demand greater ransom. This didn't make sense to Jefferson. He recognized the purchase of peace from the Muslims only worked temporarily. They would always find an excuse to break an agreement, blame the Europeans and demand higher tribute.

A Very Different Policy

After three months researching the history of militant Islam, he came up with a very different policy to deal with the terrorists. But he didn't get to implement it until years later. As the first secretary of state, Jefferson urged the building of a navy to rescue American hostages held in North Africa and to deter future attacks on U.S. ships. In 1792, he commissioned John Paul Jones to go to Algiers under the guise of diplomatic negotiations, but with the real intent of sizing up a future target of a naval attack.

Jefferson was ready to retire a year later when what could only be described as "America's first Sept. 11" happened. America was struck with its first mega-terror attack by jihadists. In the fall of 1793, the Algerians seized 11 U.S. merchant ships and enslaved more than 100 Americans. When word of the attack reached New York, the stock market crashed. Voyages were canceled in every major port. Seamen were thrown out of work. Ship suppliers went out of business. What Sept. 11 did to the U.S. economy in 2001, the mass shipjacking of 1793 did to the fledgling U.S. economy in that year.

Accordingly, it took the U.S. Congress only four months to decide to build a fleet of warships. But even then, Congress didn't choose war as Jefferson prescribed. Instead, while building what would become the U.S. Navy, Congress sent diplomats to reason with the Algerians. The U.S. ended up paying close to $1 million and giving the pasha of Algiers a new warship, "The Crescent," to win release of 85 surviving American hostages.

It wasn't until 1801, under the presidency of Jefferson, that the U.S. engaged in what became a four-year war against Tripoli. And it wasn't until 1830, when France occupied Algiers, and later Tunisia and Morocco, that the terrorism on the high seas finally ended. France didn't leave North Africa until 1962 - and it quickly became a major base of terrorism once again.

What's the moral of the story?

Appeasement never works. Jefferson saw it. Sept. 11 was hardly the beginning. The war in which we fight today is the longest conflict in human history. It's time to learn from history, not repeat its mistakes.

Typical of the extremist website you are quoting, they make not so subtle inflammatory and broad-brush generalizations of large groups of the world's population without offering any constructive or specific advice. We are to read that piece you posted as what? A hate-filled call-to-arms against all Muslims? What?

The piece asks "What is the moral of the story?" and doesn't answer their own question. Since you re-posted it, perhaps you can explain what the "moral" is.

The war on terror has gone in many directions in our history. In between the 18th century pirates that has suddenly become an issue and the current enemy, we've also dealt with major "terror" from Japan (once) and from Germany (twice.) What should we learn from those experiences? What does that right-wing extremist rag suggest that we do to "Muslims?" Any specifics? And whatever we do, should we take the same tack against all the other of our past enemies who might again rise against us, for maybe the third time in a century?

We've also dealt with home-grown, white, so-called Christian, militia-types who blow up office buildings filled with men, women and children just going about their daily lives in Oklahoma City. What do we do with those types?

While that piece of crap website you quote wants you to paint all Muslims as incorrigble terrorists, keep your eyes open in your own neighborhood. The next terrorist attack may again come from someone that looks like you, talks like you, goes to the same church as you and lives next door to the people he decides to murder.

Muslims don't have the monopoly on hatred. I'm surprised that we still have to have this discussion.

Wayne

Oh, one last point about the journalistic integrity of that site and its right wing editor. To me, the bulk of that three year old story was lifted from a piece written by Pennsylvania Representative Joe Pitts on his official government website way back in September, 2004: http://www.house.gov/pitts/press/commentary/040909c-jefferson.htm

You can compare that with the article you posted, the article that Joseph Farah put his name to several weeks later: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38200

Is it any wonder so many people refer to that site as WingNutDaily?

Wayne

When it comes to terrorism, I don't think anybody likes it, but the truth is, I'm a hell of a lot more scared of our American terrorists than I am the Muslims. This is "thee" American mercenary group; killers for hire, and they are not only very active in Iraq; they're being trained to come against American citizens ON OUR OWN SOIL. In fact, they are opening up another training base in California as I type. The Muslims do it for Jihad, but these guys? They're in it for the money, and that's a whole lot scarier in my book.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqM4tKPDlR8

Just Google them and understand something. Should the day ever come when a President declares martial law, these are the guys they are training for it because in the long run, they can't trust the enlisted soldiers to go against the American people.

Wayne,

It is your choice to like or dislike the source of that article. It doesn’t change the fact that we have had trouble with the Muslim jihadists known as the mujahiddin for almost two and a half centuries now in this country of ours. All you have to do is study our history. It is because of the Muslim jihadists that the USA has a Navy.

Our Marine Corp. sings in their hymn, “From the Halls of Montezuma, to the Shores of Tripoly”. Tripoly is where we fought the Muslim jihadists in 1801, the Marines were used to rescue the crew of the USS Philadelphia held in captivity in Tripoli (Africa) by the mujahiddin.

Our USA history if full of conflicts with the Muslim terrorists. All you have to do is study our past history. Europe’s history shows that they have been having fights with them for over a thousand years.

Also, I didn’t say hate all Muslims, that is your choice of words. I do not hate them. I just keep an eye on them. In fact I worked with a guy that I liked a lot until I caught him beating his wife. When confronted with that he let me know that it was his right to do so because she was his property.

And the moral of the story is just what they said it was. Appeasement never works. We can not pull out of the war we are in and expect that the problem will just go away. And this is not Bush’s war. Those that will not learn from history are boomed to repeat it.

I just think that all people need to know that this is not a new problem that the current administration has cooked up. It is much bigger and far reaching than that.

quote:

Originally posted by Major:
In fact I worked with a guy that I liked a lot until I caught him beating his wife. When confronted with that he let me know that it was his right to do so because she was his property.

Major, I don't want to nitpick, but I think you'll agree that that mindset isn't indigenous to Muslims. If I had a nickel for every white, black, hispanic or fill in the race and nationality, low income, high income, religious, agnostic, short, tall or otherwise man who used that "property" BS as an excuse or reason for the 'right' to abuse and beat the living hell out of his wife....I'd be a very rich and very, very, very sad individual. The same sick ethical reasoning is also spewed by people who beat and abuse their animals.

gardenz,

The point I was trying to make was that I liked that guy a lot and we worked together for over three years and got along very well even though he was Muslim. Until he crossed that line that I did not like and he would not acknowledge.

I agree that Muslims do not have exclusive wife beating thoughts, beliefs or skills. It is however part of their religious beliefs that they own their wife. Women are just a possession like a car to them. Not all of those people abuse their car or their wife. Some take very good care of their wife and their car. Others do not. That is all beside the point and off the reason for this post.

I am just pointing out that the present administration does not own exclusive rights to the war we are in and people need to be aware of that if they are going to make up their mind on what we need to do in the coming years ahead. Nobody can make good decisions without all the facts.

Major, I apologize for taking this off topic. It was just one of those sore-point subjects, that even though it was a minor part of your post, just popped out at me. I think we all have those kind of sensitive issues that raises the hairs on the back of the neck so to speak. Again, I apologize for any diversion.

Long before Islam was born, the Middle and Near East was rife with war, just as it is today. The religions have come and gone, nations have fallen and new nations born, yet they have always fought from the beginning of known history. Never-the-less, I don't think the Middle Eastern cultures have any sort of monopoly on terrorism. The Dutch, for instance, were international slave traders, and they certainly must have been viewed as terrorists by the African and South American cultures that were regularly attacked by them. Rome terrorized nation after nation and did so for hundreds of years. Egypt did it, Cannon did it, ancient India did it, and Elam (ancient Iraq) was famous for their terrorist attacks against the Sumerians. Surely even Israel was viewed as a terrorist nation by the Canaanites. And what about Nazi Germany? They certainly qualify as terrorists too.

It's been going on forever and ever and no single culture including America, hasn't been viewed as a terrorist nation. It would surprise most Americans to know that Henry Kissinger, much praised in this country as a diplomat and winner of the Nobel Peace prize is considered a war criminal in Chile. If he ever flew into that country he would be immediately arrested and tried for war crimes in much the same way top ranking Nazi's were tried here in America after WWII.

Islamic terrorists, while certainly a visible threat to our own country and in our own age, don't really seem to be any more violent than any number of groups that have existed throughout history. I don't know what the answer is, or even why human beings seem so predisposed to committing such atrocious acts, but I have a hard time believing that Muslim terrorists are any worse than any other terrorist organization that's existed down through the ages. It might seem like it, because they are a very visible threat to our here and now, but here and now is just the blink of an eye when you think about the entire history of the world.

However, in ages past, terrorists rode on horses and carried swords. Today they ride in planes and carry bombs. Technology makes terrorism a greater threat, or so it seems to me.

gardenz,

There is no apology needed but since you offered one I will gladly accept it.

And I understand that it is a touchy subject. If I was thinking ahead more I would have left that part out. Well, on second thought, maybe not because they do think that women and kids are just possessions. It’s just a question of how well they will treat their possessions and that has to be taken on a case by case basis.

Katie,

I agree that we do indeed live in a world that is very dangerous and we have a world history full of that danger if anyone would care to look at it.

It is just that I see so many people today that don’t know or understand our past in this Middle East issue. They think this war we are in now is the present administrations fault. That we can just pull out and all will be fine. And many of us know it will not be.

Major, you are undoubtedly right. If we pull out of Iraq it's not going to stop Iraqi Islamic terrorism. But from the looks of things, 90% of their terrorist attacks seem to be directed at their own people and are taking place in their own country and that is nothing new, albeit those attacks have accelerated because of the war. After all, the Iraqis were certainly not responsible for the 911 attacks. I think the only reason we are there is because of the oil and because the powers that be want control over that oil, hence their big push to establish permanent military bases there.

I know you are a patriot and I am too, and of course, nobody wants to see Islamic terrorist attacks in America. Our fear of that is a direct result of the 911 attacks and there are things about 911 that were not explained, at least not to my satisfaction, nor the satisfaction of a good many other people too.

For a long time, I had blocked out most everything about 911. The whole thing was so horrible and so traumatic that I just shut down and refused to even think about it. Then about two years ago, I decided it was time for me to look at what happened again, rethink the whole thing and find out what I really felt about it. I probably watched every video on YouTube and Google, from all the crackpot conspiracy themes to the ones that discussed very significant points to ponder. I watched the tapes of the buildings going down over and over again. They look like buildings going down in a demolition project. I read everything I could find on the internet and ordered the top four ranking books from Amazon about the 911 attacks.

I don't personally think 911 could have happened without inside cooperation from factions within our own military and CIA. I also think the official 911 Commission Report borders on an out and out lie. Nearly half of the 19 terrorists sited in that report have turned up alive and well, and they apparently had nothing to do with it.

And though it may shock you, I don't believe that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with it either. Why? Because directly after the attacks when the American Press was first blaming bin Laden, he immediately sent a tape here stating that his group was not responsible. To the American mind, most people think Osama was just trying to get out of it, but that is NOT the way Islamic terrorists think. Had bin Laden's men been responsible for 911 he would have been proud of it and boasted. He would have told America he did it and planned on doing it again. But bin Laden didn't do that, and the reason he didn't was because the press was pointing their finger directly at him. Had bin Laden remained quiet and allowed everyone to assume he was responsible when his group didn't do it, Osama bin Laden would have lost face and lost respect within the Islamic terrorist community. Though you and I don't understand "the code" the Muslim terrorists live by, they do, absolutely, have a code of honor. You break that code and you are a dead man. And part of that code demands that no group take responsibility for a terrorist attack that was pulled off by another Islamic terrorist group. If ben Laden had not stood up and said "I didn't do it" the other terrorists would accuse him of trying to take someone else's honor. That kind of thing can get you killed in the Islamic terrorist community, or at the very least, would only serve to make his own men turn against him. That's why I don't think bin Laden was lying. I don't think he did it.

Over and over again, I have watched the video tapes that supposedly show bin Laden admitting his responsibility in the 911 attacks. The trouble with those tapes is that the man speaking is clearly not bin Laden. Osama is very fair skinned for an Arab and he has an extremely long, thin face and an equally long, thin nose. The man in the tapes wears a turban and has the typical Osama bin Laden beard, but that is where the physical similarities end. The ben Laden "look alikes" have very dark swarthy skin; flat, broad faces and a very wide noses. They also look like short, stocky men, whereas ben Laden is extremely tall and thin. I also thought there was more than one man claiming to be bin Laden in the video tapes; tapes that were supposedly accepted as "evidence" by the CIA and the press.

There is a lot going on about the 911 terrorist attacks that simply do not add up.

Katie,

While I may believe that our country has failed pretty dismally in its response to 911, there is little (actually nothing) that I've seen or heard that will convince me that 911 occured through the cooperation of our governement.

I've seen those statements, such as that half the hijackers are walking around today. Since they are made on crack-pot conspiracy sites, with no documentation, I'll continue to write them off as fiction.

As much as I may criticize the path our leaders have taken us, I see nothing in what you say to document that they knowingly helped to carry it out.

Wayne

quote:

Originally posted by adirondackgardener:
Katie,

While I may believe that our country has failed pretty dismally in its response to 911, there is little (actually nothing) that I've seen or heard that will convince me that 911 occured through the cooperation of our governement.

Wayne,

On this point I am in total agreement with you.

I think you need to check your sources, Wayne…

"One problem is that at least six of the nineteen men officially identified as the suicide hijackers reportedly showed up alive after 9/11. For example, Waleed al-Shehri- said to have been on American Airlines Flight 11, which hit the North Tower of the World Trade Center - was interviewed after 9/11 by a London-based Newspaper. He also, the ASSOCIATED PRESS reported, spoke on September 22 to the US embassy in Morocco, explaining that he lives in Casablanca, working as a pilot for Royal Air Maroc.

Likewise, Ahmed al Nami and Saeed al-Ghamdi-both said to have been on United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania- were shocked, they told TELEGRAPH reporter, David Harrison, to hear that they had died in this crash. Al-Ghamdi said he had been in Tunis the previous ten month learning to fly an Airbus. ACCORDING TO THE BBC, Asharaq Al Awsat, a London-based Arabic newspaper, also reported having interviewed al-Ghamdi.

THE SAUDI EMBASSY IN WASHINGTON reported that three other alleged hijackers- Mohand a Shehri, Salem al-Haxmi, and Abdulaziz al-Omari were all alive and still living in Saudi Arabi. Salem al-Hazmi, who was accused of hijacking Flight 77, "had just returned to work at a petrochemical complex in the industrial eastern city of Yanbou after a holiday in Saudi Arabia when the hijackers struck," David Harrison reported. Al Omari, supposedly the pilot of Flight 11 but in reality working as a pilot for Saudi Airlines, "visited the US consulate in Jeddah to demand an explanation" for the US claim that he was a hijacker, and a dead one at that."--From David Ray Griffin's Book; "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions"- His sources were a London based Arab-language daily, an Associated Press release dated Sept 22, 2001, the Telegraph, BBC News, and the Independent as well as at least two Embassy statements.

If these sources qualify as "crack-pot conspiracy" in your view, then we obviously have a difference of opinion as to what qualifies as "crack-pot."

Furthermore, I do not consider the testimony of over 500 NYC firefighters and emergency help personnel "crack-pot." Nearly every last one of them reported either hearing or seeing explosions which led them to think the buildings were collapsed by demolition styled explosives. Nor can I, for the life of me, figure out how Jet fuel which only reaches a temperature of around 1700 degrees, could possibly melt high-grade steel that was guaranteed not to buckle even at 2200 degrees. Nor can I help but wonder why all the wreckage was immediately shipped of to China as salvage, when under normal forensic procedures, that steel would have been the subject of study and tests for years to come.

Nor can I figure out WHY there were so many people short selling or buying put options on United and American Airline stocks just days before 9/11. United Airlines was the subject of a 9,000% increase in put options between Sept. 6 and Sept 10. American Airlines recognized a 6000% increase in put options over their normal daily average. Put options on Morgan Stanley went up 27 times the normal level, and Merrill Lynch jumped to 12 times the normal level. A lot of the transactions can be traced back to the German banking giant, Deutsch Bank.