REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

How Would They Do it?

POSTED BY: HKCAVALIER
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 9, 2005 00:58
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2404
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, August 1, 2005 10:32 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I bow to you, Hero, your comedic talents are growing faster than your lightsabre skills, that was gorram funny.

Still wiping away the tears Chrisisall



And I was just over in Court, this young woman walks in wearing the shortest skirt, I mean Ally Mcbeal would have blushed, it was part of this sweet business suit thing. First thought was "DAMN!". Followed by, "DAMN, I hope she's a lawyer!" Follwed by "DAMN, I hope she's a stripper!" Followed by "Oops, did I say that out loud?"

My point is this my friends. WE CAN'T LET THE TERRORISTS WIN. We can't. Imagine a world with no stripper/lawyer micro-miniskirted business suits. Thats just not a world I want to live in.

H





The single most difficult thing for me to understand coming from "the right" is this idea that the terrorists can win. That they can somehow destroy our way of life and take away all the stripper/lawyer micro-miniskirted business suits.

So, how would they do it? How they gonna pull it off? I'm not looking for a fight; I'd really like to hear how folks see it going down if our worst fears were to come true.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 1, 2005 11:44 AM

GUNRUNNER


Well let’s see…

Briefcase nuke DC and NYC.
Random car bombing and shooting in the streets of America.
Highjack Oil Tankers and LNG Tankers in US ports and blow them up.
Get a Pakistani Submarine (They got about 9 French built boats) crews to defect to the Terrorist and begin sinking oil tankers exiting the gulf bound to America. Then reload her and covertly transit it with an oiler to the Panama canal area.
Take an old freighter and fit it with a high altitude SAM system and start shooting down random jetliners. (This would be a ***** to track down)

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 1, 2005 12:08 PM

CHRISISALL


I'd like to think Hero was just tryin' to be funny there, but to answer your question, terrorists have neither the equiptment, training, manpower, money or intelligence to completely 'win' at what they aim to achieve.
They can torment us periodically, make us fear our fellow man a little more, get our leaders to tighten their grasp in a martial law sort of way, but the only ultimate goal they'll ever reach is shaking hands with the lord of their particular Hells a little sooner.
We have more to fear internally than from outside our borders, at this moment in time, anyway. Fear driven decisions combined with corporate greed will be our undoing, if anything.

Sorry for lack of funny Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 1, 2005 12:10 PM

SERGEANTX


How can the terrorists win? Maybe they could figure out some way to get us to waste hundreds billions of dollars on a pointless war? Or maybe they could trick our government into eroding our civil liberties... They might even be able to get us so mad we'd alienate all of our allies and turn most of the world against us. Who knows, they might even get us to participate in some bullshit religious crusade pitting Christianity against Islam. Armageddon for everyone!

Who am I kidding? Our leaders would never fall for all that.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 1, 2005 12:27 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Who knows, they might even get us to participate in some bullshit religious crusade pitting Christianity against Islam. Armageddon for everyone!

Okay, I take back some of what I said. This made me think my post was way over on the hopeful side.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 1, 2005 5:38 PM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:


So, how would they do it? How they gonna pull it off? I'm not looking for a fight; I'd really like to hear how folks see it going down if our worst fears were to come true.



How would they win? Thats easy, let me demonstrate: BANG, your dead, they win.

Hey stripper/lawyer micro-miniskirted business suit Lady, BANG, your dead, they win.

Oh, and anybody who does not do what they say, wear what they allow you to wear, pray to their version of God, and generally do anything they disapprove of up to and including just for the hell of it, BANG, you dead, they win.

We can't let that happen. We have to protect the lives and the rights of HKCavaliers, stripper/lawyer micro-miniskirted business suit ladies, and our children from the scourge of fascism, reality TV, the Democratic Party, and religous extremism.

I tried to get her number so I could make my desire to uphold her rights a bit more personal, but she wasn't having it. So I convicted her of speeding and got her a hefty fine.

Serving justice, one pair of legs at a time,

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 1, 2005 6:12 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Normally I do not comment on these, as Sarge does an excellent job of saying everything I woulda said before I bother to type it...

But consider this, when folks say...
"How horrible it will be if they win!"

What you should ALSO consider...

"How horrible it will be if we win!"

Quote:

Oh, and anybody who does not do what they say, wear what they allow you to wear, pray to their version of God, and generally do anything they disapprove of up to and including just for the hell of it, BANG, you dead, they win.


How exactly, does this differ from the eventual intent of the religiously-inspired american "Hard Right", cause you are not at all fooling anyone into believing that if by some impossible miracle, you wipe out all those "terrorists", that you are not going to purge your little kingdom of all those "liberals" soon thereafter.

So I say unto you... exactly what's the difference ?

The "Right" gave us Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph and William Klar, remember.

I say to you - not one dimes worth of difference, and that's a fact.



-Frem




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 10:58 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:


So, how would they do it? How they gonna pull it off? I'm not looking for a fight; I'd really like to hear how folks see it going down if our worst fears were to come true.



How would they win? Thats easy, let me demonstrate: BANG, your dead, they win.

Hey stripper/lawyer micro-miniskirted business suit Lady, BANG, your dead, they win.

Oh, and anybody who does not do what they say, wear what they allow you to wear, pray to their version of God, and generally do anything they disapprove of up to and including just for the hell of it, BANG, you dead, they win.

We can't let that happen. We have to protect the lives and the rights of HKCavaliers, stripper/lawyer micro-miniskirted business suit ladies, and our children from the scourge of fascism, reality TV, the Democratic Party, and religous extremism.


It was a serious question. As I see it, the lynch pin of the argument for a "Global War on Terror" is the idea that "the Terrorists" have the real ability to defeat the U.S. In other words, a "Global War on Terror" is necessary for our survival as a people; that our enemies pose not just a criminal threat, but a political threat as well. This is the basic principle upon which all other arguments for the war are built. Without it, our aggression is simply empire building and retribution.

I don't see it. I've never seen it. And when I ask for an explanation I get quips and b.s. That's fine, I have done little to endear myself to Hero. But surely someone can show me a plausible way for Osama Bin Laden and/or his admirers to actually implement this dream of world domination?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 11:21 AM

SERGEANTX


I wasn't being entirely glib with my response, HK. There's reason to think that Osama and friends know exactly what they're doing. They spent the latter part of the nineties trying to convince the larger Muslim community that the US was intent on occupying their land, reshaping their culture and taking their oil. He was mostly ignored. Since 9/11, unfortunately, we've given him quite a bit of evidence for his argument and I don't think it took much genius on his part to suspect that we'd do just as we have.

I think they want to keep us provoked and stomping around until we've enraged the world to the point that they'll unite against us. He knows he can't defeat us militarily, but I think he believes he's found a way to bring us into conflict with those who could, given a very specific set of circumstances. Namely, it would require that our forces be spread thin in an overzealous worldwide campaign, our economy weakened by years of insecurity, and our national will demoralized by the moral ambiguity of our leadership. I don't think this will happen, but it's not as farfetched as it sounds and we've already gone a long way down his path.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 3:51 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


HK and SergeantX

Quote:

the lynch pin of the argument for a "Global War on Terror" is the idea that "the Terrorists" have the real ability to defeat the U.S. ... that our enemies pose not just a criminal threat, but a political threat as well
Quote:

He knows he can't defeat us militarily
You two gave me something big to think about.



Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2005 4:37 AM

CITIZEN


I really don't think Osama's mob can win, because I'm not altogether sure they actually have a goal which they want to achieve beyond killing lots of people.

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2005 5:26 AM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
The single most difficult thing for me to understand coming from "the right" is this idea that the terrorists can win. That they can somehow destroy our way of life and take away all the stripper/lawyer micro-miniskirted business suits.

So, how would they do it? How they gonna pull it off? I'm not looking for a fight; I'd really like to hear how folks see it going down if our worst fears were to come true.

HKCavalier



What we need to do here is determine just what it would mean for the terrorists to win. Are we talking an eradication of the American way of life? Is that the goal of Islamic extremists?

If that's the case, it's going to be incredibly difficult--nigh upon implossible--for them to "win". If that were their goal, they would have to give up terrorist tactics and fight like a conventional military. That would enable them to do two things: destroy the U.S. military and occupy and hold American soil.

Ladies and germs, it just isn't gonna happen. There is absolutely no way Islamic extremists will ever be able to field a conventional military that could defeat the U.S. So in that sense, they can never win. If the "metric of success" for the terrorist is the complete dominion of Islam over the U.S., there's no way in hell they could pull it off.

But what if that isn't their metric of success? What if it's something altogether different?

From what I gather from the last 4 years of involvement in intelligence support to Special Operations Forces fighting the war on terror, the goal of Islamic extremism is three-fold: 1) cause the withdrawal of western intervention in Muslim countries, particularly U.S. intervention, particularly in destabilized countries; 2) establish hard-line Sunni Islamic theocracies in destabilized countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, and 3) destabilize countries with sizable Muslim populations or Mulsim majorities (e.g. the Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan). (All of this is from unclassified sources and assessments. There. I've covered my ass.)

Now, this metric for success is somewhat more feasible. And, point of interest, terrorist tactics lend themselves to these kinds of objectives.

#1: To cause the withdrawal of western forces from the Muslim countries and from involvement in the war on terror, the Islamic extremists need only make such involvement politically costly. This is exactly what they did in Spain. Blow up a couple trains. Say, "It's because of Iraq." People don't want to get blown up, so they sweep a new leader into power who withdraws forces from the Iraq. Easy-peasy. The more unpopular the country's involvement, the more easy they will be to sway. And nothing makes involvement unpopular like busses and trains exploding.

#2: Once you've got the military muscle of western nations out of places like Iraq and Afghanistan, you bomb the living daylights out of police stations, government buildings and markets, until everyone is too afraid to oppose you. You have now created a power vacuum. All that's left is for you to step into it with the Quran in one hand and an AK in the other. Since you've got the population thoroughly cowed, they'll be happy as long as the bombing stops.

#3: Once you've got yourself two friendly pieces of turf to call your own, and have limited/ended the involvement of western powers in your affairs, you can turn your attention to Muslim countries with governments you don't like (e.g. Pakistan or Indonesia) and countries with sizable Muslim populations (e.g. the Philippines or Kenya). You have a nice base of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, boatloads of troops with real combat experience, and the assurance that western powers are too afraid to interfere with your activities.

Now this metric for success is attainable. All the Islamic extremists need do is hang in there. They are depending on western resolve to wane (which it almost certainly will) while simultaneously keeping up the pressure in Afghanistan and Iraq. A series of spectacular terrorist attacks might be enough to cause the withdrawal of key allies (e.g. Spain), further isolating the "allies" from the rest of the world. The only thing they have to do is be committed to keeping the pressure up in terms of domestic and foreign attacks, and to outlasting the resolve of western nations. Ladies and germs, they will almost certainly be able to do that.

I read a recent article that posited that the only way to defeat Islamic extremism is to make it heinous to Muslims. If Muslims don't believe in the cause, then Islamic extremism will die, just like the communist terrorist organizations did (as with the Red Brigades of Italy).

I'm not prepared to say there won't be a military component to defeating Islamic extremism--just that military action alone won't get it done, and will probably only make the situation worse. But believe this: a terrorist "win" along the lines of the metric of success I described above is not only possible, but probable, unless something changes radically in the west's approach to the "war on terror".

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2005 6:05 AM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL


I refuse to be the guy that killed the thread. Bump.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2005 6:11 AM

SERGEANTX


IB,

Thank you for that! It's looks, to me, to be the best assessment of the situation I've read on these boards. Or anywhere for that matter.

Quote:

Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
I read a recent article that posited that the only way to defeat Islamic extremism is to make it heinous to Muslims. If Muslims don't believe in the cause, then Islamic extremism will die, just like the communist terrorist organizations did (as with the Red Brigades of Italy).



This is THE key component that the Bushies can't seem to embrace. It seemed to me that after 9/11 we had a golden opportunity to work with Muslim communities diplomatically and marginalize the movement. Instead, it seems, we've done everything imaginable to give them cause to endorse it. From your experience/knowledge, what can we do at this point to convince them we're not the great Satan that Osama would have them believe?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2005 6:13 AM

SERGEANTX


By the way, IB. I discuss these things a fair about at the Universal Board, do you mind if I re-post your article over there?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2005 6:38 AM

FIVVER


Quote:


This is THE key component that the Bushies can't seem to embrace. It seemed to me that after 9/11 we had a golden opportunity to work with Muslim communities diplomatically and marginalize the movement. Instead, it seems, we've done everything imaginable to give them cause to endorse it. From your experience/knowledge, what can we do at this point to convince them we're not the great Satan that Osama would have them believe?



Your are right. This is the KEY component that I can't understand. WHO were we supposed to negotiate with - the Taliban, Saddam or the weirdbeards running Iran? These are the people who were/are actively supporting the terrorists with land (for training bases), money and arms. These people don't give a damn about the opinion of their citizens. Yes, if we were dealing with governments answerable to their citizens then negotation would have been the path to persue but that isn't the situation we have.

Until the January election in Iraq, more arabs voted in Israel than anyplace else in the mid-East.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2005 8:31 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
All the Islamic extremists need do is hang in there. They are depending on western resolve to wane (which it almost certainly will) while simultaneously keeping up the pressure in Afghanistan and Iraq.



Thanks Inevitable, for reviving the thread and giving such a full answer. I wish some of the staunch supporters of this war would give a full and reasonable answer to the question. Otherwise, I can't help feeling that I've called their bluff. The "Terrorist take over" talking point, references to MAD, etc. is all really just a canard to keep us affraid and pliant.

Be that as it may, I just read a very insightful interview over at Aint-it-cool-news with Tim Robbins mostly about his new play EMBEDDED that goes into some real detail on these issues. In particular the idea that it may not be their goal for our "resolve to wane" but for our resolve to harden into real oppression. The relevant discussion is pretty long, so I've underlined the points I found particularly important. You can find the whole interview here: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=20920

Quote:

SHELDRAKE: Let’s talk a little bit about London. One of things I read in the press that really struck me, someone said that one of the first casualties of the bombings was the BBC documentary THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES, a 3 hour documentary that tracks in parallel the rise of the neoconservative powerbase in America in tandem with the founding of extremist Muslim ideology, also, strangely enough, in America, both movements a response to a perceived decay in American morality. I’m sure you’ve seen it.

TIM: Oh my God, yes. Powerful.

SHELDRAKE: Incredible piece, brilliantly formed and conceived. It depicts how Leo Strauss and Sayyed Qutb BOTH came out of 1940s America and both responded to it with strident ideological utopian visions: Qutb with a utopian vision of a pure Islam, one that would respond to and drive out the Western elements already forming in Egyptian society, specifically in response to the Westernizing forces of Nassir; and in America, Leo Strauss with neoconservativism, he had the idea that American society had become lax and was falling apart morally, and that shows like GUNSMOKE and PERRY MASON provided USEFUL MYTHS. Useful, okay. Useful for what? For motivating large numbers of people to do things. Lots of different things. Go to work. Go to school. Go to war. It provides useful myths for forming a populace and for getting them all to do something that needs to be done and isn’t pleasurable. In a way it’s the collapse of the Pleasure Principle, the pursuit of happiness, as being a sufficient motivator...

TIM: Yes, absolutely.

SHELDRAKE: Strauss also believed, and the neocons believe, that American society was/is tiered intellectually. We’re back to The Republic, right, with the Gold, Silver and Bronze men. And the bronze men, the lowest order, get the myths to motivate them, because they don’t have the mental equipment or training to effectively deal with the real situation. They’d rather watch Perry Mason, or anything, American Idol, The Apprentice, whatever. Only the philosopher kings can manage things with their trained minds. But, “Quis cusotdiet ipsos custodies,” who manages the managers? This was all in the POWER OF NIGHTMARES.

TIM: Yes, that’s it. That documentary blew my mind. That’s some SERIOUS shit there. It’s really important filmmaking.

(Shellie says don’t believe us, read the transcripts yourself: http://web.telia.com/~u70316236/tpon/)

TIM: ...But it makes sense, what that documentary suggests, that what Al Quaeda WAS was a fledgling organization until WE empowered it. And NOW I’m sure it exists, and NOW I’m sure it’s more powerful than ever, beCAUSE they have the most powerful recruiting tool that you could possibly have dreamt of—the war in IRAQ. Now they have a place to go and fight! And a REAL war they can recruit for. London’s interesting though, and it relates to POWER OF NIGHTMARES—the timing of it. You have to look at what the result is—and, what was about to happen? That day, the ensuing two days after that, the West was about to get positive press for relieving debt and for increasing aid to Africa, including countries many countries with enormous Muslim populations.

SHELDRAKE: So the technique is, drive it off the front page.

TIM: Well Yes and the deeper technique is, how does a fundamentalist worldview take hold. It can’t take hold in a free and open society. It simply cannot. Just imagine a fundamentalist in the middle of a rock concert. “I see the light! You guys are being decadent!” In the midst of that freedom, that voice is unheard. But once you start regulating things… In a way, I think, what they want to do when they do things like that, they WANT the British government to overreact, to start rounding up young Muslims indiscriminately, so that they can say, “See? This is Western Society! They hate Muslims. They just round them up indiscriminately. Look at Guantanamo Bay. Look at Abu Graib.” Falling into that…

SHELDRAKE: It sets up a whole machinery that has a life of its own, generates a certain kind of press…

TIM: A fundamentalist ideology—CAN take hold—in a fascist state. When Putin overreacts and starts cutting back on Democratic reforms, it’s the worst thing he can do, because its now setting up an environment of oppression for a certain section of the population, and once that oppression starts happening, then those ideologues can come into the vacuum and say, “you see this is not a free society, that’s an illusion” –

SHELDRAKE: Which, by the way, was Leo Strauss’s message, that our perceived freedom was an illusion, very Horkheimer and Adorno, Frankfurt School, if you come at it from the other side, the fear of authoritarianism that Europeans brought here after the war. We live under the Veil of Maya and at night all cows are black.

TIM: (continuing) “—it IS about our mindset, Western society IS an attack on us, we SHOULD rebel against it.” When we make the mistake of torturing people, when we make the mistake of not living by our code.

SHELDRAKE: I forget which philosopher, maybe John Rawls in his Theory of Justice—no, that’s not it, it’s Richard Rorty, the neopragmatist – who notes that one thing you do when you make a society, you define yourself by saying, these things we do not do. Americans don’t torture people. It’s not a statement of fact: it’s part of our code. We don’t do things like that. It’s not like us to do that. It’s unlike us.

TIM: That’s right. Real Americans don’t torture people.

SHELDRAKE: And I think we really have to insist on that. Gentlemen, find another way. I was raised, in part in tent revival fundamentalism in the South. Fundamentalist was for me, my family and the people we knew, an expression of the poor’s complete disconnect from the mechanisms of power in the society. Why vote, it won’t help me, the people I choose won’t vote for what I need. Why go to school, it won’t get me a better job. Heaven is my hope, not this earth which is—what?—yes—an illusion. Fundamentalism was the empowerment mechanism we sought. I think what’s new for me, and Americans in general, is the marriage of violence to fundamentalism.

TIM: Well, it’s scary. As hell. How do you fight terrorism. Well, it seems like the way they operate is…I dunno…manipulative, clever, big statement kind of event kind of thing. In other words, I dunno who made this statement, it’s in POWER OF NIGHTMARES, At no point, even 9/11, nothing was going to tear apart the character of the American people. Nothing. It’s about chess, really. They’re playing chess. They don’t have the REAL power to take over our country.

SHELDRAKE: Well, we’re the white pieces, we have the initiative, and they’re playing the black pieces. So they’re playing for the draw, or waiting for us to make a cataclysmic mistake. But realistically, the best they can hope for is not victory, but avoiding defeat. Stalemate, in chess speak.

TIM: Right. Now, they HAVE the ability to reduce us to a state of fear—IF we go along with that. But think about it in terms of—what kind of damage are they going to do to us.

SHELDRAKE: Hmm, well, you know, the attack downtown had a profound effect on NYC that had nothing to do with fear. It had a profound economic impact on New York City, we’re still recovering from it. I’m one of the ones who was deeply affected by it economically and mentally. They CAN have a sort of limited and local effect that isn’t simply about fear.

TIM: Oh, yeah, and they can have a far larger MENTAL impact.

SHELDRAKE: Psychotraumatic disorders.

TIM: But I think we have to think in terms of strategic response, rather than military response. You see, this is NOT war on the old paradigm, this not an invading country and then we go conquer the country that invaded us. The people that invaded our country are DEAD. All right? So how do you respond to four suicide terrorists? Or nineteen? They’re dead. They come from an organization—yes, go dismantle that organization. Find ways to do that. But it wasn’t a STATE, see, that was behind it. Now when we went into Afghanistan, by the way, and because they seemed to be showing some evidence that Al Quaeda was operating in that state—I had NO problem with going in there. I wanted to see us go in and very cleverly dismantle that terrorist organization. So I didn’t protest when I was asked to about that war. I AM sure now, that Iraq was a mistake. It just…seemed like going to the old paradigm in the wrong situation, to fight a war that’s operating in a whole new way…

SHELDRAKE: And the Bush Administration has just never understood that. They just don’t get it. It’s like Nixon at the Lincoln Memorial talking to “the kids,” only its 24-7 for eight years straight.

TIM: And I think what I was trying to get to with EMBEDDED was that, ideologically they THINK that what they’re doing is a good thing.

SHELDRAKE: Yes, they’re men of good will in many ways, as you show in EMBEDDED. Genuinely caring, engaged people. But if I may wax Straussian here, they have neither the training, the gifts nor the moxy to handle this situation.

TIM: Yeah, you’re right, they just don’t get it. This overwhelmingly negative message that we’ve already sent to the rest of the world.




HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2005 8:50 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


There are two valid directions of this discussion. IB addresses what happens externally(to us) and HK addresses what happens internally.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2005 12:29 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


To continue...
Bush and bin Laden are both using each other to gain power. Neither wants to end this dance of death because the specter keeps their followers in line. So we can forsee two populations clobbering each other while the leaders stoke the fear for their own purposes. EDITED TO ADD: I can think of other instances where war was used by both sides as a distraction- the Falklands war used by both Thatcher and Galtieri to distract from problems at home, but in that case the "sides" were unequal. I can think of MANY instances when one overwhelmingly powerful side used war as a political tool: the invasion of Grenada distracting from Marine deaths in Lebanon, for example. And I can think of war (or at least conflict) between approximately equal powers where ONE side used the war while the other side wanted to end the conflict (Germany and WWII). But this may be the first time in recent history when we've had essentially two equivalent powers BOTH cynically using war and fear for their own purposes.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2005 1:32 PM

SERGEANTX


Have most of you already seen Rumsfeld's War on Frontline?

I watched it last night and found it very informative. It's not directly on the topic but gave me a much broader appreciation for the military's relationship to the White House over the last thirty years or so. It's a PBS production, so not entirely without the taint of liberal bias, but on the whole it's not pressing a particular agenda, and gives a really interesting portrayal of the differing approaches and goals of some of the people involved. I'd love you hear your comments about it. If you haven't seen it already, here's a link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/view/

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 5, 2005 2:37 PM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
By the way, IB. I discuss these things a fair about at the Universal Board, do you mind if I re-post your article over there?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock



Long as you attribute it to me--go for it. (E.G. "posted by IB on the FFF.net boards")

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2005 6:56 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


IB,

I appreciated your post, which was thoughtful, detailed, and impersonal and impartial. And if I have read your post correctly, we agree the 'war on terror' is not winnable primarily through military action.

I do have one small caveat. The question as posted read 'how would they do it?' but I feel it was aimed more at ends (goals) than means (strategy). And while your post walked both paths (ends and means) there was one omission. And that is - the goals/strategy as you have stated are to get the US out of Afghanistan and Iraq. But, what was the goal BEFORE the US invaded those countries?

Specifically, what was the goal of 9/11? I think the answer to that question will answer all subsequent events.

Rue


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2005 7:07 AM

SERGEANTX


Not to answer for IB, but Osama's original mission statement was to get the US out of Saudi Arabia. Their military base there was his biggest issue for many years.


SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2005 7:22 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


OK. OOC (out of curiosity) how would 9/11 accomplish that? I don't see an intrinsic tie that would automatically connect bases in Saudi Arabia to 9/11. It seems too indirect to me to be either a political statement or strategic action. Your thoughts?

PS Unless of course there was a mission statement for 9/11 (get US out of Saudi Arabia) which was suppressed in the news. (DANGER! conspiracy territory!)

PPS As I recall, unlike many terrorist actions, no one claimed credit for 9/11. No agenda statement was released. Who and why was a mystery.

It was the Bush admin who a couple of weeks later said it was al Qaeda.

So, what if there was a statement in which al Qaeda said it was them, and/or that it was to get US infidels out of Saudi Arabia? And it was suppressed? Would that make sense out of getting Saudis out of the US ASAP? Of the Admins conclusion it was al Qaeda when no evidence existed for that? Would it make sense out of the request/order of the Admin for news sources to not directly broadcast ObL videos?


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2005 7:46 AM

SERGEANTX


I think he was trying to make a large symbolic gesture that would show Muslims in the middle east that they are not as powerless against us as they might think. I also think he was trying to push us into military action that would alientate us around the world. He hopes to inspire people to accept his image of the US as an imperialistic aggressor and rise up against us.

I suppose you are asking for a more direct purpose, but I'm not sure there is one. He might have hoped it would have more of an economic impact than it did. And, of course, I could be wrong about all this and he's just a religious nut. Either way, I think the dynamics of what I described above are real, regardless of his actual intent.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2005 8:57 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


No, I'm not looking for a direct purpose, but one that was clearly attributable. It's hard to be the banner for a movement if you do not make yourself known. Otherwise, Columbian cartels, the Russian mob or anyone else could have claimed it for their own purposes, the mob become empowered and radical Muslims just as resigned as ever.

It goes back to an issue I've harped on before. Within a couple of weeks of 9/11, Bush said the US had proof it was al Qaeda, but that they couldn't show the information to anyone.

But 'proof' came only months after the Taliban was declared defeated and troops were sifting through rail-car loads of papers and other evidence. It was announced (with much smugness) the proof was in the form of a video of high level al Qaeda toasting 9/11 with a bottle of Stoli and cigars. (JUST KIDDING!) Celebrating nevertheless. That was a tenous connection long after the fact.

Not that I dispute it was al Qaeda. And 9/11 may have been to get the US out of Saudi Arabia. But for me, the purpose is still murky.

-------------

And now off into Al-foil hat territory. The more I think about it, the odder it gets - the lack of claims of responsibility, the quick ID of al Qaeda, the lack of Islamist rhetoric etc.

In the end, the info may have come from high level Saudis in the US, connected to another group of mucky-muck Saudis who were involved. The reason to hustle Saudis out of the country, suppress the mission statement, and censor al Qaeda was to prevent a break in US/Saudi (oil) relations. Countries have gone to war for less.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2005 12:16 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Well, I'm going to take another running stab at 9/11.

First of all, the US was a continuing target overseas and at home (millenium bomber). So 9/11 was part of a pattern.

It occurred to me that I may be focusing too much on what happened on 9/11 rather than what could have happened.

If the attacks had succeeded, it is possible the US would have been leaderless (Bush and perhaps Cheney would have been in the WH when it was attacked - OOC, I know where Bush was, where was Cheney?), and the military could have been crippled (Pentagon seriously damaged with great loss of life), as well as having its economic infrastructure non-functional.

If 9/11 was a serious strategic move against the US, what would be the follow-up? Not a conventional war. Nor do I see it as a cue for Muslims to rise up around the world. So, it doesn't make sense to me as a strategic opening. But if it was one, it was a failure. Only 1 target was destroyed and governmental and military capacity was left completely intact.

OTOH if the US had been crippled, it would have had phenomenal PR value for radical Islamists. I can't imagine al Qaeda staying silent if that was the goal.

You know, it make more sense as a trial run.




Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2005 1:14 PM

SERGEANTX


It's possible he hoped it would cripple us, but I'm doubting it. I honestly the think the point was to start the "War on Terror". I think he knew, especially with the hawkish neo-cons behind Bush, that they couldn't resist the bait.

The other thing that I think we're glossing over. The point of terrorism is 'terror'. I don't think there there was anything, beyond the symobolic value, that was strategic about 9/11 as far as the actual attack. It was meant to induce fear and anger. They use this sort of thing in the ways IB outlined.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2005 1:46 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I'll need to sign off for now, but I'm going to continue thinking about this.

Sorry to grind on this point. Given how much it annoys my coworkers when I do that, I'm guessing it's doing the same to you.

(Like SignyM, I must be perseverative. Now that's an interesting word with a very specific use. I wonder how it came into Signy's parlance.)

Thanks for the chat.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 6, 2005 7:00 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Sorry to grind on this point. Given how much it annoys my coworkers when I do that, I'm guessing it's doing the same to you.



Not in the slightest. Persistent inquisitiveness is one of my favorite personality traits.

Besides, I think most of us posting on RWE get a perverse joy in having our opinions challenged.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 7, 2005 12:53 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Many here have asked what is the objective of Bin Laden and other group who oppose the US, some like IB and SergeantX have put forth very good points on the subject...

But I don't feel the story is really complete unless we also ask what has been the objectives of the United States in the region ( particularly the last fifty or so years ) and those of the European powers following the first world war.

Some same stability, some say control, some say exploitation.....

I would suggest that much of this fight is a more or less a direct response to Western actions... Taking religion out of the equation for a moment, I believe that the people of our respective countrys, particularly the US, would not stand to be treated as we have collectively treated the people in that part of the world...

and yet it goes on ?





When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 12:24 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Many here have asked what is the objective of Bin Laden and other group who oppose the US, some like IB and SergeantX have put forth very good points on the subject...

But I don't feel the story is really complete unless we also ask what has been the objectives of the United States in the region ( particularly the last fifty or so years ) and those of the European powers following the first world war.

Some same stability, some say control, some say exploitation.....

I would suggest that much of this fight is a more or less a direct response to Western actions... Taking religion out of the equation for a moment, I believe that the people of our respective countrys, particularly the US, would not stand to be treated as we have collectively treated the people in that part of the world...

and yet it goes on ?



It's clear that the Administration has strategically framed the conflict as a monumental war of irreconcilable cultural difference as a means to justify major interference with the Mid East. Ironically, the pattern of terrorist activity and the extreme anti-western sentiment seen in the last 40 years just might be due to major western interference with the region in the first place. After the first world war, the West has carved up the Middle East into colonies on the one hand and kleptocratic (gotta love that word) monarchies willing to play our game on the other. And we certainly didn't make any points with the creation of Israel.

I'm pretty sure that Bin Laden hoped the Bush Administration would retaliate violently and indiscriminately. The whole "paper tiger" thing was the equivalent of calling someone a "pussie" on the playground to get'm to fight you. But Bin Laden's war isn't really with the west, but with non-radicalized Islam. He wants his movement to take hold throughout the Muslim world and the only way to do that is to prove that he's "right" about America and the West. And Bush's America was too promising a tool to pass up. Now that America seems thoroughly committed to playing every hand by Bin Laden's rules, it's time to work on England...

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 12:58 AM

CITIZEN


So your saying this isnt a holy fight of good verses evil, that part of the responcibillity for some of the problems is down to the western powers!
You crazy conspiracy theory loving lefty...

Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 17:10 - 4778 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:32 - 1163 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:10 - 45 posts
Salon: How to gather with grace after that election
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:04 - 1 posts
End of the world Peter Zeihan
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:59 - 215 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:58 - 1540 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:46 - 650 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:41 - 4847 posts
Dubai goes bankrupt, kosher Rothschilds win the spoils
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:31 - 5 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:29 - 7515 posts
Jean-Luc Brunel, fashion mogul Peter Nygard linked to Epstein
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:27 - 14 posts
All things Space
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:17 - 270 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL