A US Marine Speaks Out

[TheOne]

Originally posted by Shazbot

I, for one, am sick of the whole claim that we have created more terrorists than we are taking care of. I think the increase in attacks is more a sign of desperation as we are tightening our grasp. Most likely, the war on terror, like many things in life, by nature must get worse before it gets better. Let's just make sure we don't give up when it gets worse...or it will never get better.

-Douglas

The facts appear to contradict your hypothesis. Perhaps we shouldn't hit a beehive with a stick and hope to see what happens. Maybe intorducing a genetically altered bee to the hive which destroys it stealthily from within is a better strategy. Less people would get stung. Would you agree?

 

[Shazbot]

Originally posted by TheOne
The facts appear to contradict your hypothesis. Perhaps we shouldn't hit a beehive with a stick and hope to see what happens. Maybe intorducing a genetically altered bee to the hive which destroys it stealthily from within is a better strategy. Less people would get stung. Would you agree?

I'm all ears for a plausible better way to get rid of these nests. In the meantime, we can make do with what we have.

-Douglas

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by TheOne
The facts appear to contradict your hypothesis. Perhaps we shouldn't hit a beehive with a stick and hope to see what happens. Maybe intorducing a genetically altered bee to the hive which destroys it stealthily from within is a better strategy. Less people would get stung. Would you agree?

isn't that what we are doing by creating democracy in the ME?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by TheOne
The facts appear to contradict your hypothesis. Perhaps we shouldn't hit a beehive with a stick and hope to see what happens. Maybe intorducing a genetically altered bee to the hive which destroys it stealthily from within is a better strategy. Less people would get stung. Would you agree?

I suppose you're talking about winning the minds of the citizens of the middleast. That's difficult to do with the media 100% controlled by theocratic regimes which teach hatred of the US and modernity in general. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[TheOne]

originally posted by Shazbot
I'm all ears for a plausible better way to get rid of these nests. In the meantime, we can make do with what we have.

Excellent. Instead of just whining about things being bad, those who criticize should offer an alternative. Well, thank you for your time. Here's how I propose we win the war against radical islamists:

1) Equalize our support for Israel. Israel has ascended to self sufficiency and no longer needs to be the largest recipient of US financial aid and loan grants. It makes no sense to develop policy in the US that consistently favors them with no quid pro quo.

In addition, we need to remove the heavy influence of the neocons on our foriegn policy. I am encouraged that Colin Powell has begun to "take off the gloves" and fight the neocons like Cheney, Perle, and Wolfowitz. In my opinion, those people have the security of Israel in mind and they have no issues with using American blood and money to further their agendas.

Good article

It is imperative that, if Bush wins re-election, that Colin Powell be retained as SoS and he increases his assault on these people. It would also be a good thing if Cheney steps down for "health reasons" before November. This would help Bush's chances for re-election (as Cheney's approval numbers and head-to-head numbers against Edwards are abysmal) and, more importantly, Cheney is sympathetic to the Likudnik neocons and give them a large voice in government.

2) Reduce the influence of radical right wing Christian leaders on the Oval Office. These men have not been elected to government positions and are really overstepping their bounds influencing US foriegn policy. Some of these men, like Franklin Graham, are calling Islam an "evil religion". I understand that these men bring with them a large voter block, but politics need to be cast aside here. The people that push this anti-Islamic agenda are 1) hypocritical to their Christian beleifs 2) creating a wider rift in the chasm that is opening between Islam and Christianity.

3) Continue to support pro-democratic movements in non-violent ways. Forcing Iraq into democracy is anti-thetical to core democratic principles. Assisting young Iranians via the Internet and sattelite television by supporting them while at the same time admonishing dictatorial theocratic leaders dipomatically was really turning the tide in that country.

Continue to show the good nature of Americans by being an active champion of human rights, even if it means straining ties with nations who may benefit us in financial or intelligence areas. In other words, end the hypocrisy of selective intervention for humanitarian reasons.

4) Build alliances with diplomacy. We can't afford to collectively "hate the French" right now because they disagree with us. By building stronger relations with established, secular, democratic governments, we can form a strong coalition that is sympathetic and actively supportive of our mission. This may involve swallowing a little pride here and there, but the ultimate goal is far more important.

5) Start to decrease our dependence on oil. Let's develop tax incentives that get people into more fuel efficient cars. We don't need an SUV loophole right now. Drilling in ANWAR is a good idea, but reducing our consumption slowly with the ultimate goal of eliminating our need for oil should be the brass ring. Without the need for that oil, our presence in the MIddle East becomes increasingly less important.

6) Continue to try and infiltrate and destroy radical terror at the cell level. Instead of alienating US muslims, let's embrace them so they may feel compelled to help us penetrate these organizations and destroy them from the inside out.

7) Continue to develop domestic security practices that reduce the chances of internal terrorist strikes. This means funding first responders at a high level. If necessary, institute a draft for two year commitments to policing the Homeland, for patrolling the borders and coasts, for inspecting incoming freight.

originally posted by freeandfun1
isn't that what we are doing by creating democracy in the ME?

No. We are forcing democracy which is anti-thetical. It is incumbent on the Iraqis to evolve into democracy and we can help in ways other than pre-emptive invasion. This has damaged the US. Israel was the main benefactor of this invasion and it costs them nothing.

originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I suppose you're talking about winning the minds of the citizens of the middleast. That's difficult to do with the media 100% controlled by theocratic regimes which teach hatred of the US and modernity in general. Wouldn't you agree?

It is a difficult task. But the Internet and sattelite television are growing, even is nations where they may be banned. I give you Iran as a prime example.

This process takes time. We can't be so reflexive and impatient. Freedom and human rights ultimately prevail and it is so much more permanent when it is developed from within.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by TheOne

No. We are forcing democracy which is anti-thetical. It is incumbent on the Iraqis to evolve into democracy and we can help in ways other than pre-emptive invasion.

It worked for Germany and Japan. Why can't it work here?

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by TheOne

originally posted by theone

ajwps, with all due respect, you questioned my source originally because it was secondarily posted on webindia. i referenced the original source, jane's defense weekly, and now you wish to cast aspersions on it's objectivity. any other person who has any military experience, especially at the officer level, will attest that jane's is a trusted source for unbiased, accurate information regarding global military strengths. i advise you to talk to people with experience in the us military since you don't trust me on this. obviously, you have very little knowledge of the inner working of the us defense department.

The bottom line is that I have met the burden of proof by providing a credible source.

Please accept my most humble apology in questioning your objective Janes news gathering site which uses that information to evaluate world defense perspectives. I certainly feel that their opinions are as current and valid as any other public media outlet with varying conclusions and opinions based on available information. I am also aware of the fact that various governmental agencies use many public and insider sources in order to advise the policy makers in the direction of US actions around the world. I cannot qualify that Janes Defense Weekly is more than just another of many public news sites used by the US Government. My concern is with the US military and the fact that they remain in the process of learning to fight a new type of enemy. It is my impression that tactical decisions are made in Washington rather than by field commanders as was during WW2. You are also correct in stating that very few are entrusted with classified knowledge of the US Defense Department, the US State Department, the CIA, FBI or any other necessarily classified US bureau or agency.

The burden of proof that any outside or governmentally produced sources of information is only as credible as those who collect and interpret that data. How this information is evaluated and used in any public policy making is not accessible to me as a private citizen.

originally posted by ajwps

there is no valid connection between causation and correllation between george w. bush's policy and increased terrorism around the world.

While this is true, this is not what we should be proving. As I stated before, this is irrelevant. If you recall, when the State Department erred with it's original report, the patterns of global terrorism, released on April 29th, 2004, Cofer Black, the State Department's ambassador at large for counterterrorism, told a news conference that he attributed the decrease to "unprecedented collaboration between the united states and foreign partners to defeat terrorism."

When the report was corrected to show the increase in terror in 2003, does it stand to reason that what Cofer Black had stated is not only false, but the opposite is true? If not, then at any point in the future, if the rate of terrorist attacks do decline, there will be no causal connection to the bush policy on terror. Would you agree?

Actually, in my opinion, neither of these concepts is correct. Statistically there is no way that correlation is related to causation with relation to President Bush’s policies.

Jane's is a trusted reference on guaging another nation's defense assets and has been proven relatively accurate for over a century. it may surprise you that CNN is a valuable source of current events at the Pentagon and most offices have a TV tuned to it. this is not to say that other "sources" of information are not available, but i can't and won't get into those for obvious reasons. I am not resting my arguments on my experiences though and I really don't care if you don't believe where I have worked. i have referenced, credible, viable sources which you can't discredit, you have referenced nothing but your own rhetoric.

Oh contraire, I do believe that you work or have worked at the Pentagon. It is interesting that you mentioned CNN as a valuable source of current events at the Pentagon. The following article seems to indicate that the Saudi government has a more proprietary interest in this American Cable News Network.

http://www.bain.com/bainweb/public...sp?id=16752&menu_url=publications_results.asp

" 'Made in Saudi Arabia' is prominent on Tide packages. There's Arabic too." The answer is to localize. Consider the following example: The day after President Bush held an extraordinary press conference about America's difficulties in Iraq earlier this spring, the headlines on CNN.com and CNN International.com couldn't have been more different. On CNN.com, aimed at American audiences, the headline read: "Bush vows to finish job in Iraq." But CNNi.com's site led with: "Russia firms split on Iraq pullout," which announced that about half of Russian companies had decided to evacuate their contractors from the war-torn country. The Bush story wasn't even mentioned.

While some might accuse CNN.com of tailoring the news to its " 'Made in Saudi Arabia' is prominent on Tide packages. There's Arabic too."

Mr. Richard Bey may have been referring to reports that a Saudi Prince, a nephew of King Fahd, had reportedly invested in News Corporation. That claim was made by in a 1995 book, The Rise, Corruption and Coming Fall of the House of Saud. It also reported that the prince owned a whopping $2.05 billion worth of AOL stock -- parent company of Time-Warner and CNN, and had a large holding in Disney, the parent of ABC.

Why would the Pentagon use a potential Saudi conflict of interest source for critical world information based on CNN?

Al harbi is purported to have lost both his legs and been paralyzed by a bullet to the spine in the USSR/Afghan war. I can't find any references to his surrender being health related though. I can't understand why you wouldn't attribute his surrender to the one month amnesty window that was offered though.
Especially since he said so himself .

Saudi and Iranian officials -- and Harbi himself -- said on Tuesday he took advantage of a Saudi amnesty announced on June 23. Saudi Arabia said he had been in the iran-afghan border region when he contacted the Saudi embassy in Iran to surrender.

Why do you believe one word of the henchman of the now infamous Ossama Bin Laden? Why would Al-Harbi want Saudi amnesty as the Royal Family is now a target of Mr. Bin Laden, et.al. I think that there is much more likelihood of health problems with this ‘gentleman’ rather than following his role as Shahid? Why would you find any evidence of anything beyond what he stated to CNN. His word is certainly as good as his bond.

: How am I giving them tribute? By stating the facts that they are growing and the current US policy is ineffective? Is it wise to deny the facts and continue making the same mistakes until it is too late? I am not sure I understand your point here.

I am not sure that I understand where exactly where you obtained these alleged facts? It seems that reality has changed significantly with current US policy. Don’t believe everything you read or hear on CNN. A crack has begun emerging in the world of Islamic terrorism, i.e., Colonel Kadafi giving in to GW Bush, unrest in Iran’s youth, Syria’s Assad’s home ground political unrest, Jordan’s King Hussein I now beginning to bend to Washington’s will, conflicts between Egypt and their brother Araab countries and many other Islamic terrorist setbacks in the world. CNN chooses to present Iraqi civil unrest, daily insurgency bombings and shootings, unrest with US Coalition forces still a presence on their soil but the reality is far different. Iraq has begun to become normalized once again with their people working and living in a peace not known for many years as before under the thumb of the former dictator and his sons. To report the apparent bad events is good for the Democrat party and anything positive is bad for the Democratic party. All one has to do is turn on their TV sets.

The "bunker" I refered to was an analogy to counter the assertion that you made when you declared the war on terror was being won because the US had not suffered an attack on domestic soil since 9/11/2001. I found your argument lacking as a pillar of your opinion that the US was winning the war on terror. I guess I could use your argument though. Prove to me that the absence of an attack on the US by terrorists is the result of the bush war on terror?

The proof you look for is simply the fact that America has not been the target of any major attacks which should be sufficient evidence of the efficacy of George Bush’s war on terrorism. Islam and history have demonstrated time and again that perceived strength and force from their enemies have forced the Islamic terrorists groups to retreat while weakness is a green light for terrorist ATTACK mode. Sure there still are terrorist attacks around the world but if you will note that they occur in areas of perceived weakness. As late as yesterday, it has been reported that many of the foreign terrorist insurgents are leaving Iraq to return to their own homes to fight the perception of homegrown unrest and search for peace as a result of their absence. Like Mr. Bush said, ‘this war with terrorism will not be short, cheap or easy.’ I shrink at the thought of a US President who retreated from responsibility and looked toward the UN for aid and assistance on bended knee.

By the way, how exactly is Jose Maria Aznar a "new Islam freind"? this is a puzzling statement.

Why are you puzzled? The new Spanish president elected following the terrorist train attack immediately called for the small Spanish coalition contingent to be pulled out of Iraq. He acquiesced to the terrorist’s blackmail. Is this Anzar a friend of George Bush’s war on terrorism?

first off, i'm not sure what "14th century religion" you are referring to. Is it Islam? I thought Islam had it's roots in the 6th and 7th century. Secondly, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and the United States. Did you know that 85% of the us mosques have been built in the last 20 years?

You are perfectly correct. I misspoke about the approximately 1,493 hundred year old religion of Islam created in or about the year 611 ACE. What does a fast growing religion or the number of Mosques built in the United States have to do with the price of salt. For someone working in the Pentagon, you should be aware that all of these Mosques and many of these Islamites are under constant observation and examination.

Mainly, I am shocked you have perceived the war on terror to be a war on Islam. Are you a religious bigot? These people, the ones who are commiting acts of terrorism in the "name" of Allah, are a very small percentage of the generally peace loving Muslims around the world. Even bush agrees with this. America treasures the relationship we have with our many Muslim friends, and we respect the vibrant faith of Islam, which inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality. --George w. bush December, 2002

I’m surprised that you’re surprised? Remember all is not as it appears to be. I have been a student of the Qur’an for a number of years. Certainly you cannot make a blanket statement that all of any group is involved in terrorist activities. The statement that Islam is a ‘peace loving’ religion is a contradiction in terms. (Sura 9:5)

http://www.quranbrowser.com/

Shakir

So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

If you are getting your facts from Janes Defense Weekly about only a small percentage of Muslims being involved in committing acts of terrorism against the free world, you are dead wrong. There are estimated to be a little more than 1.35 billion Mosque going Muslims in the world today. Those peaceful Muslims which you say inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality are either dead or targets of their brothers as collaborators of the world of infidels. There is an ageless political axiom which refers to President Bush’s verbal public pronouncement of 12/2002 and a peaceful Islam. You should remember what he actually means is to ‘pay attention to what I do rather than to what I say.”

Islam did not attack us on 9/11. You really need to understand that if you want to have any chance whatsoever to win the war on terror. I have no idea what religion you belong to, but i advise you to consider embracing your peaceful Muslim neighbor and working together with him to make the world a better place.

“Embrace your peaceful Muslim neighbors “Said the spider to the fly.” If Islam did not attack the United States on 09/11 just who do you think did the deed? Do you think it was the ‘Elders of the Protocols of Zion.” I certainly hope that you are not a typical example of those who work at the Pentagon for America would certainly be in peril.

Islamic Terror group under one umbrerla. PBS's Frontline report lists the various terrorist Islamic groups that are actually ONE....

One more thing, in a previous post, I forgot to ask you about this: Do you have any proof of this? This is very interesting and you provided no link.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/modern.html

The author is a former political-military analyst with the U.S. Department of Defense and terrorism analyst with the State Department. He is currently a security consultant, focusing on the mitigation of post-Cold War patterns of terrorism and political violence.

“In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S., the threat of militant Islamic terrorism -- rooted in the Middle East and South Asia -- has taken center stage. While these extremely violent religious extremists represent a minority view, their threat is real. As pointed out by RAND's Bruce Hoffman, in 1980 two out of 64 groups were categorized as largely religious in motivation; in 1995 almost half of the identified groups, 26 out of 56, were classified as religiously motivated; the majority of these espoused Islam as their guiding force.

To better understand the roots and threat of militant Islam, here's a closer look at how modern terrorism has evolved in the Middle East and South Asia.”

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by TheOne

Excellent. Instead of just whining about things being bad, those who criticize should offer an alternative. Well, thank you for your time. Here's how I propose we win the war against radical islamists:

1) Equalize our support for Israel. Israel has ascended to self sufficiency and no longer needs to be the largest recipient of US financial aid and loan grants. It makes no sense to develop policy in the US that consistently favors them with no quid pro quo.
In addition, we need to remove the heavy influence of the neocons on our foriegn policy. I am encouraged that Colin Powell has begun to "take off the gloves" and fight the neocons like Cheney, Perle, and Wolfowitz. In my opinion, those people have the security of Israel in mind and they have no issues with using American blood and money to further their agendas.
Good article
It is imperative that, if Bush wins re-election, that Colin Powell be retained as SoS and he increases his assault on these people. It would also be a good thing if Cheney steps down for "health reasons" before November. This would help Bush's chances for re-election (as Cheney's approval numbers and head-to-head numbers against Edwards are abysmal) and, more importantly, Cheney is sympathetic to the Likudnik neocons and give them a large voice in government. 2) Reduce the influence of radical right wing Christian leaders on the Oval Office. These men have not been elected to government positions and are really overstepping their bounds influencing US foriegn policy. Some of these men, like Franklin Graham, are calling Islam an "evil religion". I understand that these men bring with them a large voter block, but politics need to be cast aside here. The people that push this anti-Islamic agenda are 1) hypocritical to their Christian beleifs 2) creating a wider rift in the chasm that is opening between Islam and Christianity 3) Continue to support pro-democratic movements in non-violent ways. Forcing Iraq into democracy is anti-thetical to core democratic principles. Assisting young Iranians via the Internet and sattelite television by supporting them while at the same time admonishing dictatorial theocratic leaders dipomatically was really turning the tide in that country. Continue to show the good nature of Americans by being an active champion of human rights, even if it means straining ties with nations who may benefit us in financial or intelligence areas. In other words, end the hypocrisy of selective intervention for humanitarian reasons. 4) Build alliances with diplomacy. We can't afford to collectively "hate the French" right now because they disagree with us. By building stronger relations with established, secular, democratic governments, we can form a strong coalition that is sympathetic and actively supportive of our mission. This may involve swallowing a little pride here and there, but the ultimate goal is far more important. 5) Start to decrease our dependence on oil. Let's develop tax incentives that get people into more fuel efficient cars. We don't need an SUV loophole right now. Drilling in ANWAR is a good idea, but reducing our consumption slowly with the ultimate goal of eliminating our need for oil should be the brass ring. Without the need for that oil, our presence in the MIddle East becomes increasingly less important. 6) Continue to try and infiltrate and destroy radical terror at the cell level. Instead of alienating US muslims, let's embrace them so they may feel compelled to help us penetrate these organizations and destroy them from the inside out. 7) Continue to develop domestic security practices that reduce the chances of internal terrorist strikes. This means funding first responders at a high level. If necessary, institute a draft for two year commitments to policing the Homeland, for patrolling the borders and coasts, for inspecting incoming freight. No. We are forcing democracy which is anti-thetical. It is incumbent on the Iraqis to evolve into democracy and we can help in ways other than pre-emptive invasion. This has damaged the US. Israel was the main benefactor of this invasion and it costs them nothing. It is a difficult task. But the Internet and sattelite television are growing, even is nations where they may be banned. I give you Iran as a prime example. This process takes time. We can't be so reflexive and impatient. Freedom and human rights ultimately prevail and it is so much more permanent when it is developed from within.

I can't believe this diatribe from someone who claims to have been or is an employee of the US Pentagon.

This patchwork of retreat from terrorism is nothing more nor less than a recipe for defeat and capitulation to the Muslim quest for a 6th century Islamic world.

It is evident from your posts that you are nothing more than a Muslim apologetic or simply a disguised Islamic terrorist who speaks with forked tongue. Your words seem to place you in the later group.

George W. Bush is either knowingly or with some sort of providence ending the threat of world Islam terrorism and death of mankind.

For the US to desert their long time ally Israel and become a tool of the terrorists is not a path to peace.

TheOne, learn to be like the rest of the Islamic lemming and like your brethren learn to live in a modern world of freedom, justice and mercy.

Islam has led you astray.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by NightTrain

It worked for Germany and Japan. Why can't it work here?

NightTrain you are trying to talk to TheONe who is obviously a Muslim. Why do you think he fears pre-emptive destruction of Islamic terrorism?

He and the rest of the terrorists fear strength and might for they must again retreat into their 6th century of Muhammad's Islam.

This Muslim uses English to deceive.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by TheOne

]Excellent. Instead of just whining about things being bad, those who criticize should offer an alternative. Well, thank you for your time. Here's how I propose we win the war against radical islamists:

1) Equalize our support for Israel. Israel has ascended to self sufficiency and no longer needs to be the largest recipient of US financial aid and loan grants. It makes no sense to develop policy in the US that consistently favors them with no quid pro quo.

In addition, we need to remove the heavy influence of the neocons on our foriegn policy. I am encouraged that Colin Powell has begun to "take off the gloves" and fight the neocons like Cheney, Perle, and Wolfowitz. In my opinion, those people have the security of Israel in mind and they have no issues with using American blood and money to further their agendas.

Good article

It is imperative that, if Bush wins re-election, that Colin Powell be retained as SoS and he increases his assault on these people. It would also be a good thing if Cheney steps down for "health reasons" before November. This would help Bush's chances for re-election (as Cheney's approval numbers and head-to-head numbers against Edwards are abysmal) and, more importantly, Cheney is sympathetic to the Likudnik neocons and give them a large voice in government.

2) Reduce the influence of radical right wing Christian leaders on the Oval Office. These men have not been elected to government positions and are really overstepping their bounds influencing US foriegn policy. Some of these men, like Franklin Graham, are calling Islam an "evil religion". I understand that these men bring with them a large voter block, but politics need to be cast aside here. The people that push this anti-Islamic agenda are 1) hypocritical to their Christian beleifs 2) creating a wider rift in the chasm that is opening between Islam and Christianity.

3) Continue to support pro-democratic movements in non-violent ways. Forcing Iraq into democracy is anti-thetical to core democratic principles. Assisting young Iranians via the Internet and sattelite television by supporting them while at the same time admonishing dictatorial theocratic leaders dipomatically was really turning the tide in that country.

Continue to show the good nature of Americans by being an active champion of human rights, even if it means straining ties with nations who may benefit us in financial or intelligence areas. In other words, end the hypocrisy of selective intervention for humanitarian reasons.

4) Build alliances with diplomacy. We can't afford to collectively "hate the French" right now because they disagree with us. By building stronger relations with established, secular, democratic governments, we can form a strong coalition that is sympathetic and actively supportive of our mission. This may involve swallowing a little pride here and there, but the ultimate goal is far more important.

5) Start to decrease our dependence on oil. Let's develop tax incentives that get people into more fuel efficient cars. We don't need an SUV loophole right now. Drilling in ANWAR is a good idea, but reducing our consumption slowly with the ultimate goal of eliminating our need for oil should be the brass ring. Without the need for that oil, our presence in the MIddle East becomes increasingly less important.

6) Continue to try and infiltrate and destroy radical terror at the cell level. Instead of alienating US muslims, let's embrace them so they may feel compelled to help us penetrate these organizations and destroy them from the inside out.

7) Continue to develop domestic security practices that reduce the chances of internal terrorist strikes. This means funding first responders at a high level. If necessary, institute a draft for two year commitments to policing the Homeland, for patrolling the borders and coasts, for inspecting incoming freight.

No. We are forcing democracy which is anti-thetical. It is incumbent on the Iraqis to evolve into democracy and we can help in ways other than pre-emptive invasion. This has damaged the US. Israel was the main benefactor of this invasion and it costs them nothing.

It is a difficult task. But the Internet and sattelite television are growing, even is nations where they may be banned. I give you Iran as a prime example.

This process takes time. We can't be so reflexive and impatient. Freedom and human rights ultimately prevail and it is so much more permanent when it is developed from within.

This guy is a fifth columnist. He is promoting a US policy of defeatism which is good for Islam....

 

[TheOne]

Please accept my most humble apology in questioning your objective Janes news gathering site which uses that information to evaluate world defense perspectives.

Apology accepted.

Actually, in my opinion, neither of these concepts is correct. Statistically there is no way that correlation is related to causation with relation to President Bush’s policies.

So, just so I understand correctly, the lack of attacks on US soil is proof that Bush's foreign policy regarding terrorism is working and he is winning, yet the increase in terrorist attacks globally and the growth of the Al Qaeda organization is not related at all to Bush's foreign policy regarding terrorism? You appear to be selectively choosing encouraging signs, while dismissing disturbing ones. You also appear to be deceiving yourself and blanketing yourself in a false sense of security.

Oh contraire, I do believe that you work or have worked at the Pentagon. It is interesting that you mentioned CNN as a valuable source of current events at the Pentagon. The following article seems to indicate that the Saudi government has a more proprietary interest in this American Cable News Network.

http://www.bain.com/bainweb/public...sp?id=16752&menu_url=publications_results.asp

I read the article you posted. The article seems to me to be about multinational corporations and the way they brand their products. The paragraph you paraphrased illuminated that news that was interesting to American audiences, Bush's speech, was headlined on CNN. This was not necessarily interesting to audiences overseas and, subsequently, different news was headlined on CNN International. I find this irrelevant to your argument that CNN is a propaganda front for the Saudi government.

Why would the Pentagon use a potential Saudi conflict of interest source for critical world information based on CNN?

I'm not sure I am following your logic here. No Saudi government official, Saudi citizen, or even Saudi-American is on the Board of Directors of AOL/Time Warner or anywhere in the top management structure. Where is the Saudi conflict of interest? Most of the company is owned by institutional investors on behalf of mutual-fund shareholders and other smaller investors. The biggest chunk of AOL owned by an individual is likely that of Ted Turner, but no one person or group of people owns a controlling interest in the company.

Here's a link to AOL's proxy statement from last year. Do you have some other proof that Saudi Arabia is controlling the content on CNN to influence American foreign and defense policy?

Why do you believe one word of the henchman of the now infamous Ossama Bin Laden? Why would Al-Harbi want Saudi amnesty as the Royal Family is now a target of Mr. Bin Laden, et.al. I think that there is much more likelihood of health problems with this ‘gentleman’ rather than following his role as Shahid? Why would you find any evidence of anything beyond what he stated to CNN. His word is certainly as good as his bond.

I believe the quote from the article I listed shows that, not only did Al-Harbi say he was taking advantage of the one month Saudi amnesty, but Saudi and Iranian officials did as well.

I am not sure that I understand where exactly where you obtained these alleged facts?

I gave them to you earlier. The report on Global Terror by the US State Department and the analysis by Jane's, which you have since accepted as credible, vis-a-vis your apology to me in your previous post.

Why are you puzzled? The new Spanish president elected following the terrorist train attack immediately called for the small Spanish coalition contingent to be pulled out of Iraq. He acquiesced to the terrorist’s blackmail. Is this Anzar a friend of George Bush’s war on terrorism?

I am puzzled because Aznar was voted out of power after the Madrid train bombings. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero was the man elected to power in Spain and the man who pulled out the Spanish troops from Iraq.

You are perfectly correct. I misspoke about the approximately 1,493 hundred year old religion of Islam created in or about the year 611 ACE. What does a fast growing religion or the number of Mosques built in the United States have to do with the price of salt. For someone working in the Pentagon, you should be aware that all of these Mosques and many of these Islamites are under constant observation and examination.

It's OK, we all make mistakes. You are forgiven. The reason I referenced the growth of Islam and reminded you that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, is because in your previous post, you said this:

Your opinion may be that this 14th century religion is gaining strenth and multiplying around the world while it is my view that this is not the case at all.

That's what my factual statistics have to do with the "price of salt", in case you forgot. In addition, I am unaware that all of the US mosques are under constant observation and examination. That is certainly not common knowledge in my experience in the DoD. Do you have some specific evidence of this or is this merely specualtion?

I’m surprised that you’re surprised? Remember all is not as it appears to be. I have been a student of the Qur’an for a number of years. Certainly you cannot make a blanket statement that all of any group is involved in terrorist activities. The statement that Islam is a ‘peace loving’ religion is a contradiction in terms.

All is not as it appears to be? I should trust you to inform me what's really going on? Islam, as with Christianity and Judaism, are rooted in the same basic principles. They are valuable tools for creating social communities and an important part of many people's lives. Muslims aren't all wrapped in towels waving AK-47s. Most of them, by a wide margin are upstanding members of their communities. Why are you vilifying Islam? The Old Testament is full of horrible references, yet that shouldn't indict all Jews and Christians. I don't know what religion you are inspired by, but most of them would prescribe loving one's neighbor, not plotting their destruction.

If you are getting your facts from Janes Defense Weekly about only a small percentage of Muslims being involved in committing acts of terrorism against the free world, you are dead wrong.

Prove this to me. I am not convinced. I am waiting for your evidence.

There is an ageless political axiom which refers to President Bush’s verbal public pronouncement of 12/2002 and a peaceful Islam. You should remember what he actually means is to ‘pay attention to what I do rather than to what I say.”

If I am understanding this correctly, you have just, not only branded Bush a bold-faced liar, but also accept his status as a liar and support him. Is this correct?

“Embrace your peaceful Muslim neighbors “Said the spider to the fly.” If Islam did not attack the United States on 09/11 just who do you think did the deed?

I "think" a radical group of terrorists from the Al-Qaeda organization did. If you are suggesting this was an attack by the entire religion of Islam, I am waiting for your credible evidence to support this claim.

“In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S., the threat of militant Islamic terrorism -- rooted in the Middle East and South Asia -- has taken center stage. While these extremely violent religious extremists represent a minority view, their threat is real. As pointed out by RAND's Bruce Hoffman, in 1980 two out of 64 groups were categorized as largely religious in motivation; in 1995 almost half of the identified groups, 26 out of 56, were classified as religiously motivated; the majority of these espoused Islam as their guiding force.

I read the article and thanks for the link. It was interesting but really doesn't support your claim that the War on Terror should be waged on the entire religion of Islam. What I do think it does is illustrate how secular, political terrorist organizations are getting traction by utilizing Allah's name to attract recruits. This in no way incriminates the vast majority of peaceful Muslims around the world who choose peace.

Terrorist attacks are not due to a single titular head like Osama Bin Laden but are semi-autonomous groups funded by many Islamic oil countries and front organizations like the Tide Foundation of which Mrs. John Kerry (wife of presidentail hopeful John Kerry) contributes large sums of money.

I was really more interested in the part about the Tide Foundation and Mrs. John Kerry. Can you please expound on this and provide evidence?

Thanks.

 

[TheOne]

I can't believe this diatribe from someone who claims to have been or is an employee of the US Pentagon.

I did work in the Pentagon for several years. I am sorry you don't believe me.

This patchwork of retreat from terrorism is nothing more nor less than a recipe for defeat and capitulation to the Muslim quest for a 6th century Islamic world.

It is certainly not a retreat from terrorism. I can't really understand how you see it that way. Please read it again.

It is evident from your posts that you are nothing more than a Muslim apologetic or simply a disguised Islamic terrorist who speaks with forked tongue. Your words seem to place you in the later group.

I am simply an American who wants to pursue a more prudent, productive course in confronting the terrorist threat. I have voiced my dissatisfaction with the current course and made suggestions to improve it. If you feel better by utilizing McCarthian tactics to bring my character into question, debating you will be difficult and unproductive.

George W. Bush is either knowingly or with some sort of providence ending the threat of world Islam terrorism and death of mankind.

As I have stated earlier, with credible links to evidence that proves otherwise, I believe you are wrong in this assertion.

For the US to desert their long time ally Israel and become a tool of the terrorists is not a path to peace.

Once again, nowhere in my list of solutions do I suggest we desert Israel. I said we should "equalize", not neutralize our support of Israel.

TheOne, learn to be like the rest of the Islamic lemming and like your brethren learn to live in a modern world of freedom, justice and mercy.

Islam has led you astray.

You have made another mistake. I am not an adherent to Islam. My positions are not influenced by the ethereal notions of spirituality. They are rooted in pragmatism and common sense.

I believe you are led astray though. Your rhetoric is flowery yet bold, but it does nothing from an intellectual perspective to support your argument.

 

[Shazbot]

Sorry for the length here!

Originally posted by TheOne
1) Equalize our support for Israel. Israel has ascended to self sufficiency and no longer needs to be the largest recipient of US financial aid and loan grants. It makes no sense to develop policy in the US that consistently favors them with no quid pro quo.

I understand why you would encourage a decrease in the aid sent to Israel by the U.S. It is true that Israel can fend for itself (and has been able to for quite a while). However, don’t overlook the fact that realistically, the U.S. is Israel’s only ally. Anyway, I really don’t see a point for making this move. I can only see 2 reasons for making this move. One, save money by cutting aid to Israel and then redistribute those resources to the war on terror. Two, try to increase our own credibility in the Muslim world. The first reason really has no basis. The aid we offer to Israel is not exactly crippling our abilities elsewhere, and they make up for it by being such strong allies. The second reason just plain doesn’t fly. We could cut all ties to Israel, but the Muslim world would still brand us as Zionist-supporting Infidels.

Originally posted by TheOne
In addition, we need to remove the heavy influence of the neocons on our foriegn policy. I am encouraged that Colin Powell has begun to "take off the gloves" and fight the neocons like Cheney, Perle, and Wolfowitz. In my opinion, those people have the security of Israel in mind and they have no issues with using American blood and money to further their agendas.

And what, exactly, are their agendas (aside from the security of Israel and fighting terrorists)?

Originally posted by TheOne
It is imperative that, if Bush wins re-election, that Colin Powell be retained as SoS and he increases his assault on these people. It would also be a good thing if Cheney steps down for "health reasons" before November. This would help Bush's chances for re-election (as Cheney's approval numbers and head-to-head numbers against Edwards are abysmal) and, more importantly, Cheney is sympathetic to the Likudnik neocons and give them a large voice in government.

I do hope that Colin Powell will be retained. He is a skillful leader that we need in the government. I don’t think Cheney is exactly hurting Bush’s ratings. If you think that Edwards is kicking Cheney’s butt in these “numbers,” just go ahead and wait for a debate. Unfortunately, Edwards’ hair can’t talk.

Originally posted by TheOne
2) Reduce the influence of radical right wing Christian leaders on the Oval Office. These men have not been elected to government positions and are really overstepping their bounds influencing US foriegn policy. Some of these men, like Franklin Graham, are calling Islam an "evil religion". I understand that these men bring with them a large voter block, but politics need to be cast aside here. The people that push this anti-Islamic agenda are 1) hypocritical to their Christian beleifs 2) creating a wider rift in the chasm that is opening between Islam and Christianity.

I agree that the widening rift between Christianity and Islam is nothing but detrimental. Keep in mind, though, that we can’t help but focus on Islam as a whole, when just about the entire war on terror is being fought against Islamic people, Islamic groups of people, and even Islamic nations – all on the basis of an Islamic holy war. These extremists have brought the holy war to our doors, and it would do us no good to downplay the role that Islam itself has in the whole thing.

Originally posted by TheOne
3) Continue to support pro-democratic movements in non-violent ways. Forcing Iraq into democracy is anti-thetical to core democratic principles. Assisting young Iranians via the Internet and sattelite television by supporting them while at the same time admonishing dictatorial theocratic leaders dipomatically was really turning the tide in that country.

I don’t view that we are forcing ANYTHING on the Iraqis. We are helping them establish a working democracy – because that is what they want. In the same way, we brought about democracy among Germany, Japan, and to an extent, Russia. Unfortunately, Russia is a late bloomer. As for assisting the resistance in Iran…I really don’t know much about what is/has been going on in Iran. All I know is that the rulers of the nation have all but squashed any means of rebellion. Admonishing Iranian leaders doesn’t really do much for you when they declare Jihad against you.

Originally posted by TheOne
Continue to show the good nature of Americans by being an active champion of human rights, even if it means straining ties with nations who may benefit us in financial or intelligence areas. In other words, end the hypocrisy of selective intervention for humanitarian reasons.

I don’t know what you’re getting at.

Originally posted by TheOne
4) Build alliances with diplomacy. We can't afford to collectively "hate the French" right now because they disagree with us. By building stronger relations with established, secular, democratic governments, we can form a strong coalition that is sympathetic and actively supportive of our mission. This may involve swallowing a little pride here and there, but the ultimate goal is far more important.

You’re starting to sound like Kerry here – I will to gain the support of the UN and Europe in the war on terror. Sure, it’s a good idea. Why not tell us how you plan on doing it? Our relationship with much of Europe, especially France, was strained well before the war on terror, and has been straining ever since the fall of the USSR. It’s not quite as easy as, “Can we be best friends again?” Unfortunately, (and you can counter my opinion all you want), the French, as a whole, already have an innate complex against America, for a variety of reasons. Additionally, a huge amount of our trouble with Europe stems from the very disagreement which exists - it's not much of a valid point to say that we can put aside our disagreements and renew our old alliance. It’s not a matter of Bush wanting to go everything alone and screw the world. If you don’t remember, the Bush administration (many times over) petitioned the help of the UN and Europe with regards to Iraq. Early on, it was all too clear that due to the differences of opinion, these “allies” of ours weren’t going to honor the purpose of the alliance itself. Changing our standards and security concerns does NOT equate to “swallowing a little pride here and there.” To be honest, even if Kerry gets in office, I really doubt that France will care to lift even a finger to help out militarily in Iraq.

Originally posted by TheOne
5) Start to decrease our dependence on oil. Let's develop tax incentives that get people into more fuel efficient cars. We don't need an SUV loophole right now. Drilling in ANWAR is a good idea, but reducing our consumption slowly with the ultimate goal of eliminating our need for oil should be the brass ring. Without the need for that oil, our presence in the MIddle East becomes increasingly less important.

Again, a nice idea, but thoroughly impractical. Why do you think that we don’t already drive hybrid and/or hydrogen cars? Why do you think our dependence on oil isn’t already decreased? The fact of the matter is, as long as huge petroleum and power companies exist, the shift away from oil will never really occur – they have way too much influence. So, I think the idea should be to decrease our need for oil in the Middle East. Start drilling more here in our own country, as well as in Alaska. Make more deals with South American oil resources. Screw those damn tree-huggers.

Originally posted by TheOne
6) Continue to try and infiltrate and destroy radical terror at the cell level. Instead of alienating US muslims, let's embrace them so they may feel compelled to help us penetrate these organizations and destroy them from the inside out.

I sure as hell am not alienating US muslims. And last time I heard, the CIA was out to hire on muslims to help out in that aspect.

Originally posted by TheOne
7) Continue to develop domestic security practices that reduce the chances of internal terrorist strikes. This means funding first responders at a high level. If necessary, institute a draft for two year commitments to policing the Homeland, for patrolling the borders and coasts, for inspecting incoming freight.

Actually, this is not a bad idea.


All in all, you can’t negate the necessity of military force, or the whole fight against terror is pointless. You see, peace is a mutually conceived goal. If we want peace, but the terrorists don’t, pacifism on our part is pointless, and will only lead to a second 9/11. A constantly defensive position will eventually fall. It’s not enough to block the arrows – we have to eliminate the archers.

What I think is very cool is that with a new government in Iraq, democracy will have a staging point to spread to other areas in the Middle East. Unfortunately, I don’t see that coming to fruition for quite a while, and not without plenty of problems. I, as many, have seen the correlation between terrorism and corrupt governments. By securing democratic governments in those hot spots, corruption will diminish, and suddenly terrorists will be out of a home. Terrorists will always exist, mind you. But, if we keep them from growing to the size and power of Al-Qaida/OBL, I think we’ve won.

-Douglas

 

[TheOne]

I understand why you would encourage a decrease in the aid sent to Israel by the U.S. It is true that Israel can fend for itself (and has been able to for quite a while). However, don’t overlook the fact that realistically, the U.S. is Israel’s only ally. Anyway, I really don’t see a point for making this move. I can only see 2 reasons for making this move. One, save money by cutting aid to Israel and then redistribute those resources to the war on terror. Two, try to increase our own credibility in the Muslim world. The first reason really has no basis. The aid we offer to Israel is not exactly crippling our abilities elsewhere, and they make up for it by being such strong allies. The second reason just plain doesn’t fly. We could cut all ties to Israel, but the Muslim world would still brand us as Zionist-supporting Infidels.

How do you figure that Israel is the US's only ally? Did they help us in any way so far in the War on Terror? It seems to me that they have gained much in the demise of the Saddam regime and they have lost very little. I am not sure if you are aware of the extent of US aid to Israel. Please read this article to get acquainted. You may be surprised.

US Aid to Israel

How is Israel our "strong ally"? What have they done or what do they do to qualify? We could certainly use their help now and they are absent. I think the fair, even-handed, unbiased treatment of Israel is a good first step in our overall strategy to change perceptions.

And what, exactly, are their agendas (aside from the security of Israel and fighting terrorists)?

There are copious references available that describe the artful workings of the neocons. In deference to the overwhelming conservative slant here at this forum, let me direct you to one of your own, Pat Buchanan.

article

I do hope that Colin Powell will be retained. He is a skillful leader that we need in the government. I don’t think Cheney is exactly hurting Bush’s ratings. If you think that Edwards is kicking Cheney’s butt in these “numbers,” just go ahead and wait for a debate. Unfortunately, Edwards’ hair can’t talk.

Sadly, I am reading in several articles that he probably won't be on the Bush cabinet if Bush wins in 2004:

If there is a second Bush term, Powell will almost certainly not be in it. News stories have reported that he'll step down. He has stopped short of quitting already not just because he's a good soldier, but because that's not what ambitious Cabinet officers do in American politics. Those who resign in protest usually write themselves out of power for all time. They are unlikely to be hired even after the opposition party resumes the Executive Office because they're seen as loose cannons.

article

I can supply you with several more if you are interested.

I agree that the widening rift between Christianity and Islam is nothing but detrimental. Keep in mind, though, that we can’t help but focus on Islam as a whole, when just about the entire war on terror is being fought against Islamic people, Islamic groups of people, and even Islamic nations – all on the basis of an Islamic holy war. These extremists have brought the holy war to our doors, and it would do us no good to downplay the role that Islam itself has in the whole thing.

I strongly disagree. I think it is paramount that we understand that this is not a war against Islam. The radical Islamic terrorists would love for us to mobilize a holy war. It will make them the very powerful in their Islamic communities. Nothing disturbs them more than us reaching out a peaceful hand to other peaceful Muslims. Polarizing against the entire religion is playing right into their hands.

I don’t view that we are forcing ANYTHING on the Iraqis. We are helping them establish a working democracy – because that is what they want. In the same way, we brought about democracy among Germany, Japan, and to an extent, Russia. Unfortunately, Russia is a late bloomer. As for assisting the resistance in Iran…I really don’t know much about what is/has been going on in Iran. All I know is that the rulers of the nation have all but squashed any means of rebellion. Admonishing Iranian leaders doesn’t really do much for you when they declare Jihad against you.

Someone else mentioned Japan and Germany as examples of nations where the US imposed democracy and it stuck relatively successfully. I think the dynamics of those situations juxtaposed against our current dillemma are far different. While I am not saying that forcing democracy in Iraq has no chance, I think government that evolves via the people's will has a better chance at success.

I don’t know what you’re getting at.

I think supporting regimes like Saddam's in the 80's, in the face of his humanitarian shortcomings, was a bad idea. This situation is not unique in US history and we should learn that only bad things become of it.

You’re starting to sound like Kerry here – I will to gain the support of the UN and Europe in the war on terror. Sure, it’s a good idea. Why not tell us how you plan on doing it? Our relationship with much of Europe, especially France, was strained well before the war on terror, and has been straining ever since the fall of the USSR. It’s not quite as easy as, “Can we be best friends again?” Unfortunately, (and you can counter my opinion all you want), the French, as a whole, already have an innate complex against America, for a variety of reasons. Additionally, a huge amount of our trouble with Europe stems from the very disagreement which exists - it's not much of a valid point to say that we can put aside our disagreements and renew our old alliance. It’s not a matter of Bush wanting to go everything alone and screw the world. If you don’t remember, the Bush administration (many times over) petitioned the help of the UN and Europe with regards to Iraq. Early on, it was all too clear that due to the differences of opinion, these “allies” of ours weren’t going to honor the purpose of the alliance itself. Changing our standards and security concerns does NOT equate to “swallowing a little pride here and there.” To be honest, even if Kerry gets in office, I really doubt that France will care to lift even a finger to help out militarily in Iraq.

Kerry may have some good ideas here. Let's not discount his views just because he is a Democrat. Building amicable, cooperative relationships globally is a great idea and one I think Bush is "misunderestimating"

Again, a nice idea, but thoroughly impractical. Why do you think that we don’t already drive hybrid and/or hydrogen cars? Why do you think our dependence on oil isn’t already decreased? The fact of the matter is, as long as huge petroleum and power companies exist, the shift away from oil will never really occur – they have way too much influence. So, I think the idea should be to decrease our need for oil in the Middle East. Start drilling more here in our own country, as well as in Alaska. Make more deals with South American oil resources. Screw those damn tree-huggers.

I also believe the environmentalist's that don't consider US security or employment are misguided, but drilling here is a short term solution. We can shape the future consumption of oil by investing in research and assisting oil driven industries into evolving to fit those needs. Sure it will be hard, but not impossible.

All in all, you can’t negate the necessity of military force, or the whole fight against terror is pointless. You see, peace is a mutually conceived goal. If we want peace, but the terrorists don’t, pacifism on our part is pointless, and will only lead to a second 9/11. A constantly defensive position will eventually fall. It’s not enough to block the arrows – we have to eliminate the archers.

Agreed. My only suggestion is to find out who the archers are and surgically eliminate them rather than taking wide swaths and letting "Allah sort it out".

What I think is very cool is that with a new government in Iraq, democracy will have a staging point to spread to other areas in the Middle East. Unfortunately, I don’t see that coming to fruition for quite a while, and not without plenty of problems. I, as many, have seen the correlation between terrorism and corrupt governments. By securing democratic governments in those hot spots, corruption will diminish, and suddenly terrorists will be out of a home. Terrorists will always exist, mind you. But, if we keep them from growing to the size and power of Al-Qaida/OBL, I think we’ve won.

I agree and I hope that comes to fruition.

 

[Shazbot]

How do you figure that Israel is the US's only ally?

Other way around...I said that the U.S. is just about Israel's only ally.

How is Israel our "strong ally"? What have they done or what do they do to qualify?

Well, apart from being a major source of Middle Eastern intelligence, you can go back to some of AJWPS's posts to see what I mean.

I strongly disagree. I think it is paramount that we understand that this is not a war against Islam. The radical Islamic terrorists would love for us to mobilize a holy war. It will make them the very powerful in their Islamic communities. Nothing disturbs them more than us reaching out a peaceful hand to other peaceful Muslims. Polarizing against the entire religion is playing right into their hands.

True. I guess I misunderstood. What I was getting at is that we need to hold the Islamic world on a higher pedestal as far as potential threats. Many, if not all of today's muslim nations are potential breeding grounds for terrorists, since a radical form of their religion is, in effect, our enemy. If we want effective anti-terrorism intelligence, these places must be watched.

I think supporting regimes like Saddam's in the 80's, in the face of his humanitarian shortcomings, was a bad idea. This situation is not unique in US history and we should learn that only bad things become of it.

I agree. I'm just not sure why you stated the point. Now, if you're alluding to our support of Israel, then I disagree.

Kerry may have some good ideas here. Let's not discount his views just because he is a Democrat. Building amicable, cooperative relationships globally is a great idea and one I think Bush is "misunderestimating"

No, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to "discount his views just because he is a Democrat." It just seems (to me atleast) that he is full of nothing. He states how he will gain support of Europe, renewing our age-old alliances. He states how he will create thousands of jobs. He states how he will improve the trade deficit. He states how he will be a man for the people of the United States. This is all good. My question is this: How?

Agreed. My only suggestion is to find out who the archers are and surgically eliminate them rather than taking wide swaths and letting "Allah sort it out".

I see what you mean. What about situations like Afghanistan? Was that a "wide swath"? It's just a little difficult to make surgical strikes at terrorists with such a big world. We haven't even been able to get a hold of Bin Laden.

One thing, I do remember seeing something on the news last week. I really don't know how credible it was, as I am not familiar with too much politics of the late 80's-early 90's. Anyway, it was said (something to the effect) that after the USSR fell, the role of espionage in the world was greatly diminished. So, some bill was signed, or some act was passed, or whatever, limiting the use of spies in other parts of the world, as well as limiting the use of intelligence obtained by such. Anyone with more info on this? Seems to me that if that is true, maybe we ought to get our butts in gear and bring back the intelligence gathering of the Cold War.

-Douglas

 

[duke]

Without even the existence of the UN, this war remains illegal. We invaded a sovereign nation that had not attacked us nor any of our allies. And do you really think this war was about liberation? There is no such thing. War is about profits and power. It always has and it always will be. There have been a few exceptions, but this is not one of them.

Didn't Iraq fire surface to air missiles at US and British planes over the UN imposed no fly zones,the no fly zones that protected shites and kurds from Saddam.Isn't that reason enough to go to war?
I say yes!!!!

 

[ajwps]

I did work in the Pentagon for several years. I am sorry you don't believe me.

It seems that the Pentagon may have pro-Arabists working for them as is known to be the case by many policy makers in the US State Department. As we only have your word for this fact, one may choose to believe or not believe your past employment at the Pentagon. Many on this site make fantastic claims about involvement with the PLO or the IRA. It really matters not as much as what you say.

It is certainly not a retreat from terrorism. I can't really understand how you see it that way. Please read it again.

I have read your reply post very carefully. Apparently you have not read world history, retrospective policies, or acquiesce to terrorist demands and its consequences. Your concept of the United States is simply the Rodney King scenario of "Can't we all just get along." This is either a display of ignorance or simply a ruse to hide your true identity as a traitor to American ideals.

I am simply an American who wants to pursue a more prudent, productive course in confronting the terrorist threat. I have voiced my dissatisfaction with the current course and made suggestions to improve it. If you feel better by utilizing McCarthian tactics to bring my character into question, debating you will be difficult and unproductive..

You have certainly posited your opinion against current US policy to worldwide terrorism. Your prudent course and suggestions are nothing more than defeatism and surrender to an inevitable end of civilization. You think that I am espousing McCarthian tactics when he was finding enemies were there none and my own where America and the free world is under OPEN and DELCLARED war being waged by a bestial civilization. You are correct that debate with an Arabist and defeatist is truly proving to be fruitless. Apparently there are fifth columnists in our ranks. Your character is apparently not in question.

As I have stated earlier, with credible links to evidence that proves otherwise, I believe you are wrong in this assertion..

For your information, there are no CREDIBLE LINKS as all are suspect of bias. The only credible link is one's own eyes and senses. There is no denial of 9/11, attack on the Pentagon and many, many attacks against American and western assets around the world for many years. Your Janes sight is credible only to those who don't care to know why Janes hides their opinion makers and research gathering personnel name and creditials.

Once again, nowhere in my list of solutions do I suggest we desert Israel. I said we should "equalize", not neutralize our support of Israel..

You are using the old tried and tested method of parsing words and concepts. You use the word 'equalize' which is the equivalent of 'evenhanded', 'neutral', 'unbiased' or 'impartial.' When what you are actually saying is 'desert' our allies and friends for the sake of fairness. That is the same as America taking the side of England and remaining 'equalized' with Germany's goals and aspirations of world conquest during WW2. No one with a lick of sense has any difficulty with this imbecilic rhetoric any longer.

You have made another mistake. I am not an adherent to Islam. My positions are not influenced by the ethereal notions of spirituality. They are rooted in pragmatism and common sense.

So say you.... Your positions are very clear and without a doubt not rooted in anything but an inability to understand the reality on the ground or simply a pragmatic common sense way of obfuscation. You have made the mistake of believing that there are actually some people of reason who believe that your pro-Islamic stance and 'get along with the Infidel haters' is valid. Your own rhetoric is proof to even the uninitiated.

I believe you are led astray though. Your rhetoric is flowery yet bold, but it does nothing from an intellectual perspective to support your argument.

Well said.... My argument meets no more level of intelligence or support than does your positions of giving in or standing your ground and fighting. Your perspective is extremely narrow and one's intelligence is not always the mark of the correct path.

It is obvious that one can no more explain reality to a person who has never experienced it anymore than light can be seen by those who are blind.

 

[ajwps]

Apology accepted.

Again sorry to have offended you.

So, just so I understand correctly, the lack of attacks on US soil is proof that Bush's foreign policy regarding terrorism is working and he is winning, yet the increase in terrorist attacks globally and the growth of the Al Qaeda organization is not related at all to Bush's foreign policy regarding terrorism? You appear to be selectively choosing encouraging signs, while dismissing disturbing ones. You also appear to be deceiving yourself and blanketing yourself in a false sense of security.

Sorry again but you will need to prove that the rather obvious fact on the ground correlation and causation are incorrect. One must remember that using any Internet journal, TV news service, AP wire or any other source is only as good as its bias based on ownership and editorial staff leanings. This goes for both the right, left and middle of the road sources. Hell the UN and Coalation forces information was based on each countries intelligence services which they now believe to be incorrect. So do you think the news services are more accurate or correct?

I read the article you posted. The article seems to me to be about multinational corporations and the way they brand their products. The paragraph you paraphrased illuminated that news that was interesting to American audiences, Bush's speech, was headlined on CNN. This was not necessarily interesting to audiences overseas and, subsequently, different news was headlined on CNN International. I find this irrelevant to your argument that CNN is a propaganda front for the Saudi government.

Interesting to American audiences? Have you ever read the Islamic worlds proclaimtions to western countries and then the opposite slant on the identical subject aimed at the Arab world being totally contradictory? CNN is obviously being untruthful with the American people or the people overseas. Why do you think that CNN was seemingly talking abot multinational corporations. I have been overseas and seen CNN's anti-Ameircan diatribe and Islamic slant on everything from Israel to Iraq. Why do you think Israel banned CNN from covering anything in Israel. The false slanted Saudi Arab perspective was not representing anything but the terrorist and suicide bombers. No I think you find my argument right on point.

I'm not sure I am following your logic here. No Saudi government official, Saudi citizen, or even Saudi-American is on the Board of Directors of AOL/Time Warner or anywhere in the top management structure. Where is the Saudi conflict of interest? Most of the company is owned by institutional investors on behalf of mutual-fund shareholders and other smaller investors. The biggest chunk of AOL owned by an individual is likely that of Ted Turner, but no one person or group of people owns a controlling interest in the company.

If Saudi Arabia owns a majority stock holding of AOL/Time Warner which includes majority ownership of institutional size investors or mutual-fund holders in CNN has no imput? Do you not think that any CNN/Saudi opinions expressed will point out that this oil rich Arab fiefdom funded and directed the 9/11 attack? Do you think everybody is a moron? Ted Turner sold his interest in Time Warner out to AOL some time ago. Bet you forgot?

Here's a link to AOL's proxy statement from last year. Do you have some other proof that Saudi Arabia is controlling the content on CNN to influence American foreign and defense policy?

Do you really think any Schedule 14A is going to list anything but a board of directors who are simply in their positions by the grace of Saudi Arabia prince Alsud?

Do you think that information is a closely held secret.

http://askmen.com/toys/top_10_60/70b_top_10_list.html

Number 5
Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Abdulaziz Alsaud
Prince of Saudi Arabia

Prince Alwaleed is right now the most important bridge between the Western and the Muslim worlds. The single largest Arab investor in U.S. corporations, Forbes magazine ranked him the sixth richest person in the world in 2001. With about $16 billion in holdings, his Kingdom Holding Company has major financial stakes in some of the world's best-known companies, including Citigroup, News Corp. and AOL Time Warner.

I believe the quote from the article I listed shows that, not only did Al-Harbi say he was taking advantage of the one month Saudi amnesty, but Saudi and Iranian officials did as well.

That' nice..... Do you believe Ted Bundy's statement that he was innocent or that Mr. Magoo Lay of Enron when he said that he saw nothing, heard nothing and knew nothing? You choose to believe one of Bin Laden's henchman's words if you want, I'm a bit skeptical.

I gave them to you earlier. The report on Global Terror by the US State Department and the analysis by Jane's, which you have since accepted as credible, vis-a-vis your apology to me in your previous post.

I may have appologized but find no credible evidence that Janes has anything to say that is credible as they do not list by whom, how or any validating information they came by these conclusions. There is nothing credible in any news gathering agency except their own ownership's bias. I follow what i actually see happening and not some anonoumous source.

I am puzzled because Aznar was voted out of power after the Madrid train bombings. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero was the man elected to power in Spain and the man who pulled out the Spanish troops from Iraq.

Whoever.... The existing goverment was changed because of terrorist blackmail. That fact is not in question.

It's OK, we all make mistakes. You are forgiven. The reason I referenced the growth of Islam and reminded you that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, is because in your previous post, you said this:

"That's what my factual statistics have to do with the "price of salt", in case you forgot. In addition, I am unaware that all of the US mosques are under constant observation and examination. That is certainly not common knowledge in my experience in the DoD. Do you have some specific evidence of this or is this merely specualtion?"

What are you trying to say? What has growth of numbers of fanatics have to do with anything?

All is not as it appears to be? I should trust you to inform me what's really going on? Islam, as with Christianity and Judaism, are rooted in the same basic principles. They are valuable tools for creating social communities and an important part of many people's lives. Muslims aren't all wrapped in towels waving AK-47s. Most of them, by a wide margin are upstanding members of their communities. Why are you vilifying Islam? The Old Testament is full of horrible references, yet that shouldn't indict all Jews and Christians. I don't know what religion you are inspired by, but most of them would prescribe loving one's neighbor, not plotting their destruction.

WHAT???? Islam is based on Christianty or Judaism principles? Where did you learn that all three religions are based on anything in common? You are really a trip. No all Muslims are not all wrapped in towels waving their Kalisnikov rifles in the air. But those who were not murdered as collaborators don't have to show their willingnes to kill the Infidels. Take our friendly Lebanese MUSLIM marine who was released by his Muslim captors. What a show and tell tale? These are those socially responsible murderers hiding behind their Al-Taqiyya mask. The Old Testament is full of stories about real people who, by example, taught that morality and ethics are preferable to murdering all unbelievers. There is just no parallel.

Prove this to me. I am not convinced. I am waiting for your evidence.

The proof is in reality and not in Janes Journal of facts not in evidence. You will have to prove to me that the majority of Muslims are not all Qur'an believers who are ready to take up arms against the sea of unbelievers in their goal of a world of Islam. That is a fact.

If I am understanding this correctly, you have just, not only branded Bush a bold-faced liar, but also accept his status as a liar and support him. Is this correct?

Bush is not being honest but for some reason he is doing the right thing. There is historical precedence. Richard Nixon was a rabid anti-semite as well as a hater of blacks and others (documented by his tapes). Yet against the advisement of Henry Kissinger sent American weapons to Israel which were used to defeat the Arab armies arayed against them. No explanation of such an event is possible. The same with Bush. He is destroying the Muslim goal of world domination against all reason. THERE IS NO EXPLANATION....

I "think" a radical group of terrorists from the Al-Qaeda organization did. If you are suggesting this was an attack by the entire religion of Islam, I am waiting for your credible evidence to support this claim.

The proof was given in my last post. There is no proof that all the Islamic terrorist organizations are not under the wide umbrella of Islam's Qur'an. Sura 9:5 is the proof.

I read the article and thanks for the link. It was interesting but really doesn't support your claim that the War on Terror should be waged on the entire religion of Islam. What I do think it does is illustrate how secular, political terrorist organizations are getting traction by utilizing Allah's name to attract recruits. This in no way incriminates the vast majority of peaceful Muslims around the world who choose peace.

Actually it does but no amount of proof of the truth would suffice for an Arabist.

I was really more interested in the part about the Tide Foundation and Mrs. John Kerry. Can you please expound on this and provide evidence? Thanks.

It is obvious main stream media is not going to pusblish informatiom detrimental to their own Editorial's left wing Democrat party. The early information is becoming availbable

According to publicly available information, in recent years Mrs. Heinz Kerry's foundations have given at least $5.9 million to these entities. While a Kerry campaign spokesman insists such funds were earmarked for environmental causes, as the New York Post observed in a caustic editorial on Tuesday about Teresa's philanthropy, "money is fungible." And money entrusted to the Tides organizations for distribution routinely found its way into the hands of people pursuing more than merely hard-line "green" agendas.

For example, as Ben Johnson observed in an article last month in FrontPageMagazine.com titled "Teresa Heinz Kerry: bag lady for the radical left," beneficiaries of some $300 million distributed over the years by the Tides' operations include:

"Rabid antiwar demonstrators, antitrade demonstrators, domestic Islamist organizations, pro-terrorists legal groups, environmentalists, abortion partisans, extremist homosexual activists and open-borders advocates."

More troubling still is that the investment by Mrs. Heinz Kerry in organizations providing large sums — and, in some cases, probably life-support — to such groups is paying off for her husband's campaign.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040309-083259-7560r.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37244

Keep trying.....

 

[TheOne]

FYI....

Netlore Archive: Email flier falsely alleges that Teresa Heinz Kerry, heiress to the Heinz catsup fortune and wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, contributes money to radical left-wing political causes

-snip-

While it is a fact that the Heinz Endowments, of which Teresa Heinz Kerry is the chairman, has granted upwards of $8 million through the Tides Center and Tides Foundation since 1994 to fund high school career programs, environmental protection projects and the like in Pennsylvania (see complete list of grants), those funds were not shared by any other causes or organizations connected with Tides, according to administrators.

Heinz Endowments President Maxwell King explains it thus:

First, by legally binding contract, every penny of Heinz’s support to Tides has been explicitly directed to specific projects in Pennsylvania. It cannot legally be redirected and is the exact opposite of fungible.
Second, the Tides Center is a provider of management and administrative services, and we have used it only for those services, not to advance Tides’ grantmaking agenda. Foundations from all across the country-many, like Heinz, with strong centrist agendas-use these services to incubate an array of nonprofit programs. So does the federal government. It is no more accurate to suggest that Heinz supports every one of these programs than it is to suggest that someone who contributes to a specific group through the United Way supports the agenda of every other United Way beneficiary.

Third, the projects we have supported through Tides speak for themselves. They include programs to test the career readiness of area high school students, protect Pittsburgh’s environment and retain young people in our region-hardly an extremist agenda.

Fourth and finally, information about every one of our Tides-related grants is and always has been readily available in our public filings, annual reports and here on our web site. Far from being secretive, we have been consistently open in detailing the nature of our grants to Tides and every other

-snip-

article

I think your assertion that CNN is a shill for the Saudi government offends reason. I can find articles on CNN's web site by CNN reporters that are based in Jerusalem.

In any event, you are quick to disregard all my sources because you say that any author can inject bias, (even though I was using a report from the US State Department) yet you link articles from the Washington Times and WorldNet to bolster your position. What is also amazing is that, WorldNetDaily, one of the sites you used as a reference, was founded and is run by Joseph Farah, an ARAB American. Mr. Farah collaborated with Rush Limbaugh in the book "See, I told you so". I guess his bias doesn't slip in though, right?

 

[ajwps]

FYI....

article

Paul Hollrah, a former State Representative (R), District
8, Oklahoma. He also served as a member of the Electoral College in 2000 also finds the Kerry Heinz Tide Foundation connection. Quoting Urbanlegends.com proves nothing more than your Janes Military Digest Site. You say Jane's Military site is used by the Pentagon, but what about a Republican State Senator's conclusions.

http://homepages.bw.edu/~gbouw/Mrs_Kerry.htm

I think your assertion that CNN is a shill for the Saudi government offends reason. I can find articles on CNN's web site by CNN reporters that are based in Jerusalem.

You may not be aware, but I too was employed for several time periods as an agent of the Intergalactic police force, Mannniwaaee III of the Milky Way Galaxy. We use only reliable sources for our information. Like direct observation instead of relying on Janes Military Digest.

Really, the following site is used by most intelligence services around the world. Even more than Janes Military Digest.

http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2002/06/24/israel-bans.html

In a surprise move, Israel has banned news channels CNN, BBC, Sky and ABC from all its domestic TV on the grounds of "unreasonable bias", and has instead signed up Fox television and the UK's Channel 5 to provide programming for its citizens.

The perfectly reasonable response is thought to stem from comments made by the notoriously parochial and thoughtless founder of CNN, Ted Turner. Turner said in a recent interview that he felt Israel and Palestine were terrorising each other.

The millionaire — who wasn't previously known to be an anti-Semite — subsequently apologised for taking a balanced view, but to no avail.

A review by Israeli authorities, lead by moderate prime minister Ariel Sharon, revealed that CNN had been force-feeding Palestinian propaganda to the world and as such needed to have several Apaches send missiles through its windows. Fortunately, its headquarters in the US are beyond the helicopters' range.

However, Israeli officials were surprised to find that most other organisations had also been corrupted by Muslim insurgents and that most were guilty of flagrant anti-Israeli bias.

As such, they have all been banned in favour of less-threatening content. Fox is known to be more responsive to countries that have lots of money and Channel 5 shows nothing but pornography and police chase video shows, so a renewed sense of balance and understanding in the Middle East is likely to result from the tough but fair decision.

In any event, you are quick to disregard all my sources because you say that any author can inject bias, (even though I was using a report from the US State Department) yet you link articles from the Washington Times and WorldNet to bolster your position. What is also amazing is that, WorldNetDaily, one of the sites you used as a reference, was founded and is run by Joseph Farah, an ARAB American. Mr. Farah collaborated with Rush Limbaugh in the book "See, I told you so". I guess his bias doesn't slip in though, right?

Remember that I said all sources including the US State Department, the Pentagon and my own sites are biased.

I SAID ALL OF THEM.....