Hi, Y'all!

[Jeff Wrangler]

Exactly. That's why this "war on terror" schtick is such a con.

Sure enough. And I was just thinking the other day, I guess we didn't learn anything from when the Russians got bogged down in Afghanistan, did we?

Not that I'm ag'in crushing the Taliban, because I'm all in favor of that, but I'm just starting to think we're not going to wind up any better off in Afghanistan than the Russians did. 

[Marge_Innavera]

I guess it's a little like the "War on Cancer." Remember that? It never ends. ... 

The pattern seems to be that when something not involving an official declaration of war between nation-states starts getting called a "war", look out. 

And follow the money -- there are quite a few people with a financial interest in not seeing the "war on cancer" won. Similarly, the "war on tobacco", the "war on drugs"......

[Jeff Wrangler]

The pattern seems to be that when something not involving an official declaration of war between nation-states starts getting called a "war", look out. 

And follow the money -- there are quite a few people with a financial interest in not seeing the "war on cancer" won. Similarly, the "war on tobacco", the "war on drugs"......

I guess the "War on Terror" fits that pattern, doesn't it? 

[Clyde-B]

The term "war" is a strategically chosen verbal ploy.

It serves as a rallying cry to young men to enlist, because we have chosen to use troops instead of diplomacy.

And it gives the action the sound of public legitimacy, whether war is actually declared or not.

Clinton was able to end the terrorist action in Ireland by creating a situation where the two parties are so economically entwined that a hostile action on either side hurts both of them economically.  Whether that would work here or not, I don't know.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Clinton was able to end the terrorist action in Ireland by creating a situation where the two parties are so economically entwined that a hostile action on either side hurts both of them economically.  Whether that would work here or not, I don't know.

I doubt it. And I believe there really is no negotiating with the Taliban. The Taliban have no incentive to reach a negotiated settlement, because that would require them to give up something.

[Clyde-B]

I doubt it. And I believe there really is no negotiating with the Taliban. The Taliban have no incentive to reach a negotiated settlement, because that would require them to give up something.

It may be unlikely, but they say everybody wants something, and it's no secret that politics in the middle east is notoriously corrupt.  I wouldn't be surprised if the politics of the religious fanatics in the middle east are as corrupt as they are here.

[Jeff Wrangler]

It may be unlikely, but they say everybody wants something, and it's no secret that politics in the middle east is notoriously corrupt.  I wouldn't be surprised if the politics of the religious fanatics in the middle east are as corrupt as they are here.

Funny that I should actually wish that to be true, but somehow I just can't imagine the Taliban being "bought off." 

[Clyde-B]

Funny that I should actually wish that to be true, but somehow I just can't imagine the Taliban being "bought off." 

Well, maybe I'm mistaken, but the louder the "Bible" (or Qur'an or Torah or whatever) is thumped, the less I believe the purity and sincerity of the thumper.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Well, maybe I'm mistaken, but the louder the "Bible" (or Qur'an or Torah or whatever) is thumped, the less I believe the purity and sincerity of the thumper.

I don't disagree with you about the Bible- or Qur'an-thumping, but look at the way the Taliban were running things when they had control of Afghanistan. I look back to that, and then I can't imagine them being bought off. I believe what they want is to have again the power that they once had to run Afghanistan according to their own medieval notions.

[Marge_Innavera]

... keep in mind that it might be open season on you, and little to nothing will be done about it.  Straight supporters might take that into consideration as well.



British Consul Killed In Jamaica In Anti-Gay Attack
Jim Burroway
September 11th, 2009

Violence against gays in Jamaica is continuing unabated. Honorary British Consul in Jamaica John Terry was found dead at his home in Montego Bay. Police say he died of asphyxiation after being repeatedly beaten, possibly with a lamp. Police say neighbors found his naked body laying in the yard with a cloth and cord tied around his neck. A trail of blood was found throughout the property.

Police are investigating the possibility that the attack might have been an anti-gay attack, citing a handwritten note on Terry’s body describing him as a “batty man”, a pejorative term for a gay man. The note warned, “This is what will happen to ALL gays.” It was signed, “Gay-Man.”

While London newspapers are reporting the gay angle — even the conservative Times of London mentioned the note as an indication of the murderer’s motive — but the Jamaican news media has been silent on the issue. The Gleaner’s report on the murder completely ignored the evidence of an anti-gay bashing.

Jamaica has become notorious for its ongoing anti-gay violence. The U.S. State Department singled out Jamaica for “human rights abuses, including arbitrary detention, mob attacks, stabbings, harassment of homosexual patients by hospital and prison staff, and targeted shootings of homosexuals. Police often did not investigate such incidents.”

Terry, 65, had lived in Jamaica since 1967 where he represented the British High Commission for the popular resort area of Montego Bay.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/09/11/14596