American Terrorism

[Gunny]

I don't believe anybody's propaganda. And no, nobody was shaking in their boots.

If the Taliban are crushed, how come there is a resurgence of them in Pakistan? I had to break it to you MC, but AQ were never an international, well-constructed terrorist group like the IRA. They are a mish mash of fanatics and Muslim fundies who belong to a whole slew of different groups that are hardly organised in the traditional sense.

BS re the Islamic terrorists. They are a fringe group in fringe countries. Tell me one non-Muslim country where they have a stranglehold. Other than Iran, and Afghanistan under the Taliban, name a Muslim country where they rule? The Sky is Falling MC, The Sky is Falling!

The US is already being replaced, you just don't realise it yet - by China and India...

I have to call foul on this one, Grump. You know very well how and why the what's leftt of the Taliban is left unmolested in Pakistan. Are you suggesting the US violate the sovereignty of another nation to go after them?

I personally have no problem with it and would have run them to ground no matter where they went. I'm just trying to imagine exactly how much eloquence you would use in continually condemning the action.

I also have to ask where you get your parameters from. One non-Muslim country where "they" (fundies) have a stranglehold? Why only non-Muslim countries?

It stands to reason they are going to operate in environments most conducive to their success, and spread from there.

How many countries PERIOD were controlled by fundies in 1970 compares to how many countries period were controlled by fundies in 2001?

How many countries NOT controlled by fundies are currently waging wars of survival against them?

 

[Warner]

I have to agree with Gunny on this one. The power of the fundamentalists has grown tremendously over the last 15 years or so, and especially since the war in Iraq began. The situation in Pakistan is dire. And whats going on in Africa is something we should really be much more concerned about.

The bottom line is we should not have gone into Iraq. At least, not until we had exterminated the Taliban and A-Q in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In 2002-3 we had the influence to do as we wished in northern Pakistan, and the available might as well.

We should have carpet bombed without warning sections of Kabul and other locations where we believed the Taliban and AQ leadership might be hold up.
We should then have sent perhaps as many as 80,000 or even 100,000 troops, encircled them and exterminated them, and killed Bin Ladin and his henchmen. Then we should have undertaken a major rebuild Afghanistan project in order to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people and philosophically defeat the Taliban/AQ.

And finally we should have paid for this by building a pipeline from the Arabian Sea North through Pakistan and Afghanistan to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. This would supply huge amounts of oil which could fund not only the military operation but also buy the support of all four countries.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Then you know what I am talking about.

That's pretty sad if you think folks such as Gunny are terrorists.

 

[eots]

I have to agree with Gunny on this one. The power of the fundamentalists has grown tremendously over the last 15 years or so, and especially since the war in Iraq began. The situation in Pakistan is dire. And whats going on in Africa is something we should really be much more concerned about.

The bottom line is we should not have gone into Iraq. At least, not until we had exterminated the Taliban and A-Q in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In 2002-3 we had the influence to do as we wished in northern Pakistan, and the available might as well.

We should have carpet bombed without warning sections of Kabul and other locations where we believed the Taliban and AQ leadership might be hold up.
We should then have sent perhaps as many as 80,000 or even 100,000 troops, encircled them and exterminated them, and killed Bin Ladin and his henchmen. Then we should have undertaken a major rebuild Afghanistan project in order to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people and philosophically defeat the Taliban/AQ.

And finally we should have paid for this by building a pipeline from the Arabian Sea North through Pakistan and Afghanistan to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. This would supply huge amounts of oil which could fund not only the military operation but also buy the support of all four countries.

KEEP IN MIND THER ARE MANY ARABS AND LOTS OF BOX CUTTERS

 

[Dr Grump]

I have to call foul on this one, Grump. You know very well how and why the what's leftt of the Taliban is left unmolested in Pakistan. Are you suggesting the US violate the sovereignty of another nation to go after them?

I know they are left unmolested, that is my point. You invade Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq and NOW you are concerned about sovereignty??? You do realise the areas where the Taliban are hiding out are run by the Pushtan, not the Pakistan govt. They have a long-running agreement with the Govt in Islamabad that the govt controls the roads and the tribes the different areas. Why not black ops like you guys did in the mid 80s in central America? Violating sovereignty?? ppfffffffffttttt...

I also have to ask where you get your parameters from. One non-Muslim country where "they" (fundies) have a stranglehold? Why only non-Muslim countries?

Because MC's post gave the impression they were taking over the world. If Muslims are taking over Muslims, then it is up to them to sort it out. I don't see them as an overall threat to the western world. Sure there are little pockets in Holland and Britain, but they have no more sway than your own Nation of Islam. Would be similar re Christians.

It stands to reason they are going to operate in environments most conducive to their success, and spread from there.

Maybe, maybe not, but you have to realise outside of Syria, Iran, some of the minor Gulf states, where are their stongholds? There is very few fundies in Indonesia (the biggest Muslim country in the world). Ditto India, North America, South America, China, Vietnam, Russia, most of Africa, Japan, the Koreas - IOW, the vast majority of the rest of the world. You right-wing Yanks always need something to rally against. Up until the 1990s it was Commies, now it's Muslims. What next, folks who like driving on the left hand side of the road?

How many countries PERIOD were controlled by fundies in 1970 compares to how many countries period were controlled by fundies in 2001?

Well, ironically, one such place is that great US ally Saudi Arabia for ever and a day. Another was Yemen. Syria is NOT fundamentalist, yet is a much bigger thorn in the side of the US with its support of terrorism. Outsida that, the only fundie countries have been Afghanistan and Iran (and even in Iran there is a huge secular movement, that although curtailed, is still there). How many Muslim countries are there? 30-40? And two are fundie, one being a strong US ally..go figure...

How many countries NOT controlled by fundies are currently waging wars of survival against them?

True, but they are (with the exception of Thailand and Phillipines) Muslim countries. And those fundies are the minority by far. And how successful have they been?

 

[Dr Grump]

I have to agree with Gunny on this one. The power of the fundamentalists has grown tremendously over the last 15 years or so, and especially since the war in Iraq began. The situation in Pakistan is dire. And whats going on in Africa is something we should really be much more concerned about.

The bottom line is we should not have gone into Iraq. At least, not until we had exterminated the Taliban and A-Q in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In 2002-3 we had the influence to do as we wished in northern Pakistan, and the available might as well.

We should have carpet bombed without warning sections of Kabul and other locations where we believed the Taliban and AQ leadership might be hold up.
We should then have sent perhaps as many as 80,000 or even 100,000 troops, encircled them and exterminated them, and killed Bin Ladin and his henchmen. Then we should have undertaken a major rebuild Afghanistan project in order to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people and philosophically defeat the Taliban/AQ.

And finally we should have paid for this by building a pipeline from the Arabian Sea North through Pakistan and Afghanistan to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. This would supply huge amounts of oil which could fund not only the military operation but also buy the support of all four countries.

Carpet bombing would have created far more terrorists than not. Islamic fundimentalism has not been on the rise in the past 15 years. It has always been there, but because it has only recently started to affect the US, you have noticed it. Most informed people outside of your border have seen this happening for much longer.

it would be impossible to build a pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan. Even at their most stable, outside of those countries' main cities, the land has always been a law unto themselves. You would be at the mercy of local warlords...

 

[Gunny]

I know they are left unmolested, that is my point. You invade Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq and NOW you are concerned about sovereignty??? You do realise the areas where the Taliban are hiding out are run by the Pushtan, not the Pakistan govt. They have a long-running agreement with the Govt in Islamabad that the govt controls the roads and the tribes the different areas. Why not black ops like you guys did in the mid 80s in central America? Violating sovereignty?? ppfffffffffttttt...

I did not say I personally care about violating the sovereignty of Pakistan in this case. I was mostly poking fun at you, one of the US's biggest critics suggesting we just that.

And you're mixing apples-n-oranges. Pakistan, unlike the countries you mention, is not the target of the US. Naturally sovereignty is ignored when one invades a country. It otherwise is not.

I personally would have no problem bombing the Taliban back into the stone age.

Because MC's post gave the impression they were taking over the world. If Muslims are taking over Muslims, then it is up to them to sort it out. I don't see them as an overall threat to the western world. Sure there are little pockets in Holland and Britain, but they have no more sway than your own Nation of Islam. Would be similar re Christians.

Maybe, maybe not, but you have to realise outside of Syria, Iran, some of the minor Gulf states, where are their stongholds? There is very few fundies in Indonesia (the biggest Muslim country in the world). Ditto India, North America, South America, China, Vietnam, Russia, most of Africa, Japan, the Koreas - IOW, the vast majority of the rest of the world. You right-wing Yanks always need something to rally against. Up until the 1990s it was Commies, now it's Muslims. What next, folks who like driving on the left hand side of the road?

Kind of a skewed perception of events. "Right wing yanks" did not start the Cold War.

And no, it isn't "muslims." It's militant muslim extremists who are waging a war of terror, individually or collectively all over the world.

Well, ironically, one such place is that great US ally Saudi Arabia for ever and a day. Another was Yemen. Syria is NOT fundamentalist, yet is a much bigger thorn in the side of the US with its support of terrorism. Outsida that, the only fundie countries have been Afghanistan and Iran (and even in Iran there is a huge secular movement, that although curtailed, is still there). How many Muslim countries are there? 30-40? And two are fundie, one being a strong US ally..go figure...

Sudan? Palestine?

True, but they are (with the exception of Thailand and Phillipines) Muslim countries. And those fundies are the minority by far. And how successful have they been?

I still don't consider the fact the country is Muslim or not as a factor.

 

[Dr Grump]

I did not say I personally care about violating the sovereignty of Pakistan in this case. I was mostly poking fun at you, one of the US's biggest critics suggesting we just that.

And you're mixing apples-n-oranges. Pakistan, unlike the countries you mention, is not the target of the US. Naturally sovereignty is ignored when one invades a country. It otherwise is not.

I personally would have no problem bombing the Taliban back into the stone age.

Kind of a skewed perception of events. "Right wing yanks" did not start the Cold War.

And no, it isn't "muslims." It's militant muslim extremists who are waging a war of terror, individually or collectively all over the world.

Sudan? Palestine?

I still don't consider the fact the country is Muslim or not as a factor.

Good point re Sudan. Palestine??hmmm I'll give you that do to a degree...Still, not many in the overall scheme.

Well, right wing Yanks certainly entrenched the anti-Communist movement. McCarthy anyone?

I am a bit harsh of some aspects of your foreign policy for sure, but some of the praise gets buried. I think you guys do a lot of good with aid but are hardly praised for it..

 

[Gunny]

Good point re Sudan. Palestine??hmmm I'll give you that do to a degree...Still, not many in the overall scheme.

Well, right wing Yanks certainly entrenched the anti-Communist movement. McCarthy anyone?

I am a bit harsh of some aspects of your foreign policy for sure, but some of the praise gets buried. I think you guys do a lot of good with aid but are hardly praised for it..

The Arabs of Palestine voted for a known international terrorist organization to represent them as their government. That makes each and every Palestinian who voted for them complicit in their actions.

McCarthy was a witchhunter and fearmongerer. Communist aggression was a threat to the world post-WWII. The fact that it collapsed on its own does not negate the millions that were murdered between 1917 and 1986.

 

[Dr Grump]

The Arabs of Palestine voted for a known international terrorist organization to represent them as their government. That makes each and every Palestinian who voted for them complicit in their actions.

McCarthy was a witchhunter and fearmongerer. Communist aggression was a threat to the world post-WWII. The fact that it collapsed on its own does not negate the millions that were murdered between 1917 and 1986.

Palestine is literally split in two at the moment - both geographically and ideologically...with hamas running one part and fatah the other. Plus I wouldn't put a whole lot of faith in the electorial system. Hamas are not really fundamentalists in the same sense as the Taliban. They hate Israel, but I don't think they enforce Sharia law do they?

As for Communism, I have always felt it wasn't true communism in the Soviet Union. It's not like everybody was equal. it was more a totalitarian state...

 

[Gunny]

Palestine is literally split in two at the moment - both geographically and ideologically...with hamas running one part and fatah the other. Plus I wouldn't put a whole lot of faith in the electorial system. Hamas are not really fundamentalists in the same sense as the Taliban. They hate Israel, but I don't think they enforce Sharia law do they?

As for Communism, I have always felt it wasn't true communism in the Soviet Union. It's not like everybody was equal. it was more a totalitarian state...

I do not know whether or not Hamas is fundie.

The Soviet Union was not a by-the-book "communist" nation. But that is what they called themselves and what a combination of totalitarianism and socialism was labelled during the Cold War.

 

[jillian]

I do not know whether or not Hamas is fundie.

The Soviet Union was not a by-the-book "communist" nation. But that is what they called themselves and what a combination of totalitarianism and socialism was labelled during the Cold War.

Hamas isn't fundie... they're just terrorists.

The Soviet Union also wasn't really socialist because the property was owned by the State and not privately... well, in theory anyway.

 

[MasterChief]

Because MC's post gave the impression they were taking over the world. If Muslims are taking over Muslims, then it is up to them to sort it out. I don't see them as an overall threat to the western world. Sure there are little pockets in Holland and Britain, but they have no more sway than your own Nation of Islam.

Three things...
1. Read UBL's own words--there are several good books on the subject.
2. Visit Ground Zero in New York. [oh, by the way--on 9/11 I knew exactly who was doing it as it happened]
3. Read Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against the West by Walid Phares, published by Palgrave Macmillian, copyright 2005.

 

[Dr Grump]

Three things...
1. Read UBL's own words--there are several good books on the subject.
2. Visit Ground Zero in New York. [oh, by the way--on 9/11 I knew exactly who was doing it as it happened]
3. Read Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against the West by Walid Phares, published by Palgrave Macmillian, copyright 2005.

Oh, I know there are fundie Muslims and what their agenda is. I'm just wondering how successful they have been. I don't even think OBL had anything to do with 9-11. he happily took the credit and those resposible were definiately fundie Muslims, but I don't think he planned it. There has been no evidence of that other than him saying so - as I said, it was him gladly taking the credit.

Why do you think 9-11 happened?

 

[jillian]

Three things...
1. Read UBL's own words--there are several good books on the subject.
2. Visit Ground Zero in New York. [oh, by the way--on 9/11 I knew exactly who was doing it as it happened]
3. Read Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against the West by Walid Phares, published by Palgrave Macmillian, copyright 2005.

No question we got attacked here... but I'm just wondering what you think is added to one's knowledge by a trip to Ground Zero. And so you know, I'm not being snide or anything. I'm genuinely curious to hear your answer.

 

[Warner]

Carpet bombing would have created far more terrorists than not. Islamic fundimentalism has not been on the rise in the past 15 years. It has always been there, but because it has only recently started to affect the US, you have noticed it. Most informed people outside of your border have seen this happening for much longer.

Well, I don't disagree that fundamentalism has been around for a long time. My point is that there was a huge acceleration of the movement starting about 15 (maybe 20) years ago and this has become almost exponential since the invasion of Iraq.

As for the carpet bombing creating more terrorists than not, I disagree. The Taliban was relatively concentrated in Kabul and a few other locations. Given US stealth bombers these areas could have been surgically carpet bombed. Yes there would definitely have been collateral damage, but the number of innocents killed would be less than the number lost to date, and the war would have been all but over. The key to success in this would be quickly and effectively rebuilding Afghanistan, providing a quick and noticeable improvement in the lives of the people.

it would be impossible to build a pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan. Even at their most stable, outside of those countries' main cities, the land has always been a law unto themselves. You would be at the mercy of local warlords...

I disagree. I'm not saying it would be easy, but such a pipeline would be feasible. In fact, such a thing is still in the plan - the only issue is when. It had been thought construction could begin around 2012. But given the state of the situation, clearly that date is not going to be realized.

 

[MasterChief]

Hmmmmmmmmm... funny how people respond to things. I always looked to Machiavelli as a way NOT to do things... as brutal leadership and a willingness to do whatever you felt you needed to in order to secure power, no matter what the repercussions. No where in my studies did I ever think those were positive things. In fact, if I say someone is machiavellian, I certainly am not using it as a complement.

We have not been brutal enough in this war in my view. Donald Rumsfled tried to run a politically correct war with limited surgical operations and that is why the military came to hate him over time. As General Sherman said, "War is hell" and trying to sanitize it, only helps the enemy. Had we bombed the passes out of the Shahikot Valley after March 2, 2002, brought in heavy artillery of the 101st and used our own troops to block access to Pakistan, there is a good chance UBL would be dead and Iraq would have been irrelevant. But no...we had to play "Mister Nice Guy" and sacrifice our own troops in the process. And many AQ elements escaped into Pakistan, although we could see the heat of their camp fires from 30,000 feet as they made their way across the mountains. Rummie was afraid we'd may accidentally kill some poor mountain goat herder--although there was no villages in the region or at that altitude--so he let them pass. SOB. That idiot...that's what happens in war.

Wars are won by killing the enemy as in large numbers, as quickly and efficiently as possible and turning the general population away from supporting the enemy. If that means providing amnesty to Confederate leaders and generals as in the War Between the States or atomizing a population of a major city like Hiroshima, then that's what you do. Wars are fought to be won, not run like some division of a major corporation and Donald Rumsfeld was not Machiavellian enough.

 

[Warner]

The Arabs of Palestine voted for a known international terrorist organization to represent them as their government. That makes each and every Palestinian who voted for them complicit in their actions.

IMO the people of any nation are always responsible for the actions of their leadership. If the leadership brings death and destruction upon them through its actions that is the price that must be paid for allowing such leadership. I'm not saying this is always fair, just that it is an obvious reality.

 

[jillian]

We have not been brutal enough in this war in my view. Donald Rumsfled tried to run a politically correct war with limited surgical operations and that is why the military came to hate him over time. As General Sherman said, "War is hell" and trying to sanitize it, only helps the enemy. Had we bombed the passes out of the Shahikot Valley after March 2, 2002, brought in heavy artillery of the 101st and used our own troops to block access to Pakistan, there is a good chance UBL would be dead and Iraq would have been irrelevant. But no...we had to play "Mister Nice Guy" and sacrifice our own troops in the process. And many AQ elements escaped into Pakistan, although we could see the heat of their camp fires from 30,000 feet as they made their way across the mountains. Rummie was afraid we'd may accidentally kill some poor mountain goat herder--although there was no villages in the region or at that altitude--so he let them pass. SOB. That idiot...that's what happens in war.

I have to disagree. Rummy wanted to do the war on the cheap because he was arrogant. He wanted to put the military folk in their place and didn't listen to his generals... neither did Cheney, and in turn, neither did Bush. I don't think we should have gone in. But having said that, once the decision to go in was made, it should have been done with overwhelming force. There wasn't any "mister nice guy"... there was a lack of planning for anything beyond deposing Saddam Hussein. They ignored the state department's warnings about what would happen if they went into Baghdad and planned nothing ... there was no clear objective. *That* was the failure.

Wars are won by killing the enemy as in large numbers, as quickly and efficiently as possible and turning the general population away from supporting the enemy. If that means providing amnesty to Confederate leaders and generals as in the War Between the States or atomizing a population of a major city like Hiroshima, then that's what you do. Wars are fought to be won, not run like some division of a major corporation and Donald Rumsfeld was not Machiavellian enough.

I think Rummy was far TOO Machiavellian... he cared only for his own stature and not his troops' well-being. The problem, in part, was a clear definition of who the enemy was. We, at least theoretically, weren't at war with the Iraqi people. Prior to Saddam's fall, there was no AQ in Iraq or fundies in power... the problem with the operation was a total and complete failure to prevent sectarian violence. They should never have disbanded the Iraqi Army. I'm not a military person, but I think the position into which they placed our troops was untenable at best and brutally disgusting, at worst. They endangered our bravest out of hubris.

By the by, I'd recommend State of Denial for some interesting reading on the lead up to the war and the decision-making processes involved.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have to disagree. Rummy wanted to do the war on the cheap because he was arrogant. He wanted to put the military folk in their place and didn't listen to his generals... neither did Cheney, and in turn, neither did Bush. I don't think we should have gone in. But having said that, once the decision to go in was made, it should have been done with overwhelming force. There wasn't any "mister nice guy"... there was a lack of planning for anything beyond deposing Saddam Hussein. They ignored the state department's warnings about what would happen if they went into Baghdad and planned nothing ... there was no clear objective. *That* was the failure.



I think Rummy was far TOO Machiavellian... he cared only for his own stature and not his troops' well-being. The problem, in part, was a clear definition of who the enemy was. We, at least theoretically, weren't at war with the Iraqi people. Prior to Saddam's fall, there was no AQ in Iraq or fundies in power... the problem with the operation was a total and complete failure to prevent sectarian violence. They should never have disbanded the Iraqi Army. I'm not a military person, but I think the position into which they placed our troops was untenable at best and brutally disgusting, at worst. They endangered our bravest out of hubris.

By the by, I'd recommend State of Denial for some interesting reading on the lead up to the war and the decision-making processes involved.

He was talking about Afghanistan not Iraq.