Update on the war against "Al-Qaida"

[Larry Gude]

I think...

What Went Wrong? by Bernard Lewis

The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright

It might come in useful for you.

...I recommended 'What went wrong" about four years ago in the book section of the forums. From that book I learned a basic understanding of Islam and it's geopolitical history. Helping those folks modernize absent Westernization over the years has been a mistake. We were far better off letting the Soviets arm them with crap weapons and leaving Israel to deal with the rest. It's not for us to 'westernize' them. They have to come to it themselves. We, our actions, legitimizes every fundamentalist doomsday scenario they preach to the masses of whom, I also learner, perhaps 10% can actually read the Koran.

Haven't read the Tower. From the synopsis, what would you expect me to learn from it?

 

[SamSpade]

I was vaguely under the impression we were conducting a war against global terrorism. I know of no such war against "al-Qaeda".

 

[Larry Gude]

You...

Their motivation is not relevant. They can state their reasons for being your enemy all they want.

If someone takes a swing at me because I insulted his family, does it really matter when I take him out?

If someone takes a swing at me because he doesn't like my clothing, does it really matter when I take him out?

If someone takes a swing at me and I don't have a clue why, does it really matter when I take him out?

All that does matter is that I protected myself and took the dumb azz out.

...just wrote yourself a license to behave in any fashion you see fit and hold yourself to no standard. Correct?

 

[Lenny]

...I recommended 'What went wrong" about four years ago in the book section of the forums. From that book I learned a basic understanding of Islam and it's geopolitical history. Helping those folks modernize absent Westernization over the years has been a mistake. We were far better off letting the Soviets arm them with crap weapons and leaving Israel to deal with the rest. It's not for us to 'westernize' them. They have to come to it themselves. We, our actions, legitimizes every fundamentalist doomsday scenario they preach to the masses of whom, I also learner, perhaps 10% can actually read the Koran.

Haven't read the Tower. From the synopsis, what would you expect me to learn from it?

1.) how the entire Arab perspective grew from a year or two of teacher college in Greeley, COLORADO (promiscuous, liberal,
2.) how the Islamist can declare war on even their own by deciding the other is not Islamist-enough and therefore a heratic
3.) how the Islamists are not happy just getting rid of Americans, they want to go back to pre-electricity days (they're a lot like Amish with Attitude)
4.) how they used OBL for his money and not his smarts to declare jihad on America. OBL is NOT the real head that needs to be severed from the snake.

That's a beginning.

 

[This_person]

...mind our own business.

Do you mean isolationism?

We don't belong in Afghanistan. We don't belong in Iraq.

Agreed. If there hadn't been a need to go to those places, we should not have. Do you believe there was not a national interest for Afghanistan? For Iraq?

We trade with people who are willing to trade with us and we deal with them based on that.

Are we doing anything different than this now? Do we FORCE people to trade with us? Do we tell them we'll nuke 'em if they don't import McDonald's cheeseburgers?

I would like to think that I would not have an energy policy that is predicated on dependence.

I fully agree with this. We made the mistake of growing faster than we could supply ourselves, and in the wrong directions often. But, that's where free trade and the market put us. I fully agree that it is in our national interest to change this, and change it as fast as we could be expected to do so.

 

[This_person]

Their motivation is not relevant. They can state their reasons for being your enemy all they want.

If someone takes a swing at me because I insulted his family, does it really matter when I take him out?

If someone takes a swing at me because he doesn't like my clothing, does it really matter when I take him out?

If someone takes a swing at me and I don't have a clue why, does it really matter when I take him out?

All that does matter is that I protected myself and took the dumb azz out.

It matters if you want to not have to take everybody out. There are things that could be done to protect ourselves before someone takes a swing at us, sometimes. Sometimes not.

 

[Larry Gude]

That...

1.) how the entire Arab perspective grew from a year or two of teacher college in Greeley, COLORADO (promiscuous, liberal,
2.) how the Islamist can declare war on even their own by deciding the other is not Islamist-enough and therefore a heratic
3.) how the Islamists are not happy just getting rid of Americans, they want to go back to pre-electricity days (they're a lot like Amish with Attitude)
4.) how they used OBL for his money and not his smarts to declare jihad on America. OBL is NOT the real head that needs to be severed from the snake.That's a beginning.

...I am sure of. However, there was never a good reason to no whack him anyway. Getting him now would be an act of desperation.

And the internal struggles of Islam should be very much left to their own devices; the too fundamental/too modern battle. There's no way in hell we should be giving them the rope ($) to make their battle global. But we are.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yeah...

It matters if you want to not have to take everybody out. There are things that could be done to protect ourselves before someone takes a swing at us, sometimes. Sometimes not.

...and had the Justice Department handed over one little piece of affirmative paper telling FBI to continue their investigation of the 9/11 gomers, we likely would have stopped them.

Instead, it was oh so important that FBI/CIA not share one single table scrap and, viola, an incredibly low tech attack conducted by angry momma's boys was used as the impetus for is to go on our own global jihad.

 

[This_person]

...and had the Justice Department handed over one little piece of affirmative paper telling FBI to continue their investigation of the 9/11 gomers, we likely would have stopped them.

Instead, it was oh so important that FBI/CIA not share one single table scrap and, viola, an incredibly low tech attack conducted by angry momma's boys was used as the impetus for is to go on our own global jihad.

Different departments of the government not sharing information against enemies was really, really stupid. No doubt about that.

Our own global jihad? Is that what you think this is?

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

...just wrote yourself a license to behave in any fashion you see fit and hold yourself to no standard. Correct?

Not at all. I wrote that I don't give a crap about someone's motivation for attacking me and defending myself. Now did I make myself clearer?

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

It matters if you want to not have to take everybody out. There are things that could be done to protect ourselves before someone takes a swing at us, sometimes. Sometimes not.

Therefore, the minority (or perhaps majority) of Japanese who really didn't want war with the United States, shouldn't have suffered the consequences of the leaders who did attack us without a declaration of war?

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

Different departments of the government not sharing information against enemies was really, really stupid. No doubt about that.

Our own global jihad? Is that what you think this is?

I agree not sharing intelligence was stupid (thank Gorelick). You wouldn't believe (well, maybe you would), just how different the data in different databases were. What a mess! Briefings to commanders during the Clinton years consisted of JICPAC, ONI and us. The information was never the same and left the commander guessing on what was correct. It was just plain stupid!

 

[Larry Gude]

No...

Different departments of the government not sharing information against enemies was really, really stupid. No doubt about that.

Our own global jihad? Is that what you think this is?

...that's probably too colorful word for what we're doing, a crusade, and it isn't in keeping with the concept of jihad.

We've invaded two nations. One of which has been a battleground for most of human history and the other we're on the verge of making an Iranian client state. I hope to be eating crow in 5 year, maybe 10, and the troops can look back on their losses and see that a free, vibrant, Iraq with rule of law and individual rights will be a reality. As for Afghanistan, good Lord.

 

[This_person]

Therefore, the minority (or perhaps majority) of Japanese who really didn't want war with the United States, shouldn't have suffered the consequences of the leaders who did attack us without a declaration of war?

I'm not sure how that comparrison applies, but I'll give you a comparrison to help explain what I'm saying.

Let's say that we were forcing our will on Saudia Arabia. We would only buy their oil if they demanded MTV be played in their schools and homes. We would only give them food if they promised to educate their women and force them to start wearing short skirts and plunging necklines. We threatened to bomb them to kingdom come if they didn't stand down their thrown, and elect a government. Then, when they got angry at us and claimed we were ruining their culture, so they were going to commit terrorist actions against us, we got indignant and said "I don't care what your reasons are, I'm just gonna take you out for commiting acts of terrorism against us." We would be in the wrong, and there would be actions we could have taken that stopped them from wanting to go postal on us in the first place.

However, since I don't think we did a damned thing to them that in any way paralleled this, I don't think there was any good "justification" for the hatred. We exist, and that's a temptation for them to sin against their own beliefs, and therefore we're in the wrong. IMO, that's their real perception.

 

[Larry Gude]

One...

I agree not sharing intelligence was stupid (thank Gorelick). You wouldn't believe (well, maybe you would), just how different the data in different databases were. What a mess! Briefings to commanders during the Clinton years consisted of JICPAC, ONI and us. The information was never the same and left the commander guessing on what was correct. It was just plain stupid!

...of the most fascinating and least discussed aspects of 9/11 was Gorelicks memo, her bosses signing off, the complete lack of discussion about it and her subsequent position on the 9/11 panel. What the HELL was going on there??

 

[This_person]

We've invaded two nations. One of which has been a battleground for most of human history and the other we're on the verge of making an Iranian client state. I hope to be eating crow in 5 year, maybe 10, and the troops can look back on their losses and see that a free, vibrant, Iraq with rule of law and individual rights will be a reality. As for Afghanistan, good Lord.

Given that one of those nations actively harbored terrorists whose goal was to harm us, was it wrong to invade and overthrow that nation, in our own interest?

Given that all indications showed that the other nation had a dictator who was literally killing for the chance to take the first nation's place, and had recently performed incredible acts of barbarism under the same leadership, and was over a decade into violating the terms of the cease fire from their most recent acts of global barbarism, and we were a paranoid nation from our wounds, was it wrong of us to overthrow that nation's leadership in our own interest?

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

...of the most fascinating and least discussed aspects of 9/11 was Gorelicks memo, her bosses signing off, the complete lack of discussion about it and her subsequent position on the 9/11 panel. What the HELL was going on there??

I agree. Those in the field had to pick up the pieces due to her screwup. Fortunately, operators don't have the turf wars that politicians do. I have NO idea how she got on the 9/11 panel. Interesting book if anyone really knows what happened.

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

I'm not sure how that comparrison applies, but I'll give you a comparrison to help explain what I'm saying.

Let's say that we were forcing our will on Saudia Arabia. We would only buy their oil if they demanded MTV be played in their schools and homes. We would only give them food if they promised to educate their women and force them to start wearing short skirts and plunging necklines. We threatened to bomb them to kingdom come if they didn't stand down their thrown, and elect a government. Then, when they got angry at us and claimed we were ruining their culture, so they were going to commit terrorist actions against us, we got indignant and said "I don't care what your reasons are, I'm just gonna take you out for commiting acts of terrorism against us." We would be in the wrong, and there would be actions we could have taken that stopped them from wanting to go postal on us in the first place.

However, since I don't think we did a damned thing to them that in any way paralleled this, I don't think there was any good "justification" for the hatred. We exist, and that's a temptation for them to sin against their own beliefs, and therefore we're in the wrong. IMO, that's their real perception.

I can understand not going out of one's way to pizz someone off. (I'd make an exception in F'stool's case). Countries all look to their national interests first. We may have very close first tier allies in GB, Canada, Aus, and NZ (sometimes), but each is looking out for themselves first. Since we don't have aliens outside our little piece of ground in the universe trying to knock us off, we fight amongst ourselves.

 

[ImnoMensa]

Its all our fault , everything is .


We suck big time, we need to close the doors and call it a day. Kiss the asses of the terrorists and send all of our companies abroad.

We need to starve for the next hundred years to pay the world back for being the greatest country in the world.

Geez get a life folks.

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

Is that kinda like socialists class warfare?