Time for neocons to get educated

[DeadCanDance]

Through these past few years, I've heard Bush voters get completely mixed up, and totally misinformed about who attacked us on 9/11, who our real enemies are, and blow off important distinctions between groups and nations in the muslim world.

I've heard NeoCons call Al Qaeda "shia" muslims; I've heard them claim that Iran and Al Qaeda are in league, and that for some reason, all theocratic muslims must lumped under the same umbrella, as a threat to us.

As the new Zawahiri video demonstrates, Al Qaeda actually consider they shia to be dogs, they consider Iran to be their enemy, and they actually consider Iran to be a tacit US ally in the occupation and subjugation (their perception) of Iraqi sunnis.


new video released by al-Qaeda's number 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Zawahiri identifies Iraq as the primary field for jihad or holy war and defends the Islamic State of Iraq (radical Sunni Muslims in Iraq) from charges of having been especially vindictive and destructive.

Zawahiri also again slams the the Shiites. He sees Iran as hypocritical and actually tacitly cooperating with the US. He dismisses Muqtada al-Sadr as an Iranian cat's paw. He attacks Hasan Nasrallah of Lebanon's Hizbullah.

This sectarian approach is typical of the Salafi Jihadis' failures in Iraq, where only a pan-Islamic movement against US occupation could have had a chance of succeeding. Nasrallah is still very popular in the Arab world because his Hizbullah stood up to Israel's attack on Lebanon in summer of 2006, and al-Zawahiri clearly sees Nasrallah as a rival to himself. But Nasrallah has an extensive social welfare program and deputies in the Lebanese parliament, and leads a real if small political movement in a compact territory. Zawahiri is a fugitive whose organization is shadowy and tenuous and on the run. These are the rantings of a loser.

The one worrisome thing in the video Zawhiri's conviction that the US presence in Iraq is keeping al-Qaeda alive as a cause, which may well be correct. A whole new generation of jihadis with key terrorism skills is being created by their struggle against what they see as US occupation. That US interests are held harmless from this development in the long run seems unlikely. Zawahiri also calls on the Pakistani military to make a coup against Pervez Musharraf, apparently in hopes that officers of a radical Muslim bent will come to power.

http://www.juancole.com/

 

[Paulie]

So now Zawahiri even makes statements that ought to make you understand what our aggressive interventionist policy is doing to us.

I specifically agree that many close-minded neo-cons, war supporters, whatever, think of all the muslim nations that RIGHT NOW, are considered our enemies, are somehow all connecting with each other to in some way or another help each other against the "Great Satan".

Forgive me if, to me, that sounds like the classic case of a conspiracy theory in itself. Do some of you really think that as long as any of those Muslim countries that are right now considered our enemies, ESPECIALLY by the stories put out by the US MSM, they are somehow working together? In some way, shape, or form?

Why are the main top dogs as far as the supposed most wanted terrorists, even THEMSELVES saying that it's our occupations, and overall interventionist policy that is pissing them off to the point of jihad?

Since perhaps we got them a little riled up against us over the last 50 or more years, should we accept their ridiculous holy war and bomb the ever loving shit out of all their countries? No telling how many of them we're getting, but we always know how many innocents we kill. We also know how much this is costing us, and how it's killing our economy. Are you willing to go bankrupt over this? How much is enough to spend? Is there no limit? Should we spend as much, and use any means possible, even if we DO go bankrupt? Even if eventually someone gets pissed off enough, like Russia or China, and enters? WW3? WW4? Nukes? Where do you draw the line?

How are some of you not getting tired of seeing this yet?

 

[DeadCanDance]

I was in favor of the invasion of aghanistan. But, given the complete ineptness of the Bush admin., in hindsight, I think this whole thing should have been handled more surgically, through special operations, intelligence, and law enforcement, and covert ops. That was the way to deal with it. It shouldn't have been a "war on terror". Invading and occupying countries is only breeding more of these nutbags.

 

[Paulie]

If the CIA can take people out, install governments, create covert organizations that front themselves internationally to take on other countries governments, all the while managing to stay completeley secret about it to where not even the terrorists know, then they can manage this terrorism bullshit on their own.

This is why there is so little oversight into covert operations in Congress. If the CIA publicly opened it's closet to government, they wouldn't be able to have the control they have internationally.

The best way to control a movement, is to become a PART of the movement. That has always been known. It's what the CIA is SUPPOSED to do BEST. It's a little harder to do that job, and run covert operations in countries when the potential target for the CIA has it's enemy surrounding them all over the country during an invasion.

We should be letting that process work itself out, and make absolutely damn sure that information coming in from intelligence isn't false, or misleading.

We just shouldn't be going to complete war with another country all in the name of keeping us feeling safe and secure here at home that sometime between now, and the rest of INFINITY, because someone may at some time sneak into our country and blow something up.

That just doesn't make any sense. We should be kept EMPOWERED by our government and media, not kept in fear wanting war to be used as a tool to help us sleep better at night.

 

[Annie]

If the CIA can take people out, install governments, create covert organizations that front themselves internationally to take on other countries governments, all the while managing to stay completeley secret about it to where not even the terrorists know, then they can manage this terrorism bullshit on their own.

This is why there is so little oversight into covert operations in Congress. If the CIA publicly opened it's closet to government, they wouldn't be able to have the control they have internationally.

The best way to control a movement, is to become a PART of the movement. That has always been known. It's what the CIA is SUPPOSED to do BEST. It's a little harder to do that job, and run covert operations in countries when the potential target for the CIA has it's enemy surrounding them all over the country during an invasion.

We should be letting that process work itself out, and make absolutely damn sure that information coming in from intelligence isn't false, or misleading.

We just shouldn't be going to complete war with another country all in the name of keeping us feeling safe and secure here at home that sometime between now, and the rest of INFINITY, because someone may at some time sneak into our country and blow something up.

That just doesn't make any sense. We should be kept EMPOWERED by our government and media, not kept in fear wanting war to be used as a tool to help us sleep better at night.

How does a country do covert in sunshine?

 

[Gunny]

Through these past few years, I've heard Bush voters get completely mixed up, and totally misinformed about who attacked us on 9/11, who our real enemies are, and blow off important distinctions between groups and nations in the muslim world.

I've heard NeoCons call Al Qaeda "shia" muslims; I've heard them claim that Iran and Al Qaeda are in league, and that for some reason, all theocratic muslims must lumped under the same umbrella, as a threat to us.

As the new Zawahiri video demonstrates, Al Qaeda actually consider they shia to be dogs, they consider Iran to be their enemy, and they actually consider Iran to be a tacit US ally in the occupation and subjugation (their perception) of Iraqi sunnis.


new video released by al-Qaeda's number 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri.





http://www.juancole.com/

Coming from someone who thinks a neocon is anyone to the right of him, what a f-ing joke.

 

[Paulie]

How does a country do covert in sunshine?

Not sure what you mean, other than in the light of day?

Covert operations are not limited to the hours of night time.

If you meant something else by that, please clarify.

 

[jillian]

I think she was referring to general transparency.

 

[Paulie]

I think she was referring to general transparency.

How could an agency like the CIA do it's job properly, and keep covert operations effective, if they're transparent?

They have a tactic they call "Limited Hangout", where they'll release SOME information on a topic, that will appear transparent, leaving the WHOLE story still a secret. It gives an impression that there's truth being told, when in reality it's actually being successfully surpressed.

 

[Gunny]

How could an agency like the CIA do it's job properly, and keep covert operations effective, if they're transparent?

Enquiring minds WOULD like to know.

 

[Paulie]

Enquiring minds WOULD like to know.

Excuse the segue, and I hope this doesn't derail the thread, which I don't intend for it to do...(we could always start another thread for it)

But it's reasons like that, which lead me to believe that maybe Valerie Plame WAS a covert operative. How could we really be sure about WHAT she was? Any covert operative has to have cover stories about themselves, things that can help lend creed to the credibility of that person, if they're involved in a covert op. It's a lot like undercover police officers on a drug bust case, or something.

There's no way to know if her being a "paper-pusher" is real, or if it's just a limited hangout. There's no real way to know if ANY of that story is a limited hangout, or not.

 

[Gunny]

Excuse the segue, and I hope this doesn't derail the thread, which I don't intend for it to do...(we could always start another thread for it)

But it's reasons like that, which lead me to believe that maybe Valerie Plame WAS a covert operative. How could we really be sure about WHAT she was? Any covert operative has to have cover stories about themselves, things that can help lend creed to the credibility of that person, if they're involved in a covert op. It's a lot like undercover police officers on a drug bust case, or something.

There's no way to know if her being a "paper-pusher" is real, or if it's just a limited hangout. There's no real way to know if ANY of that story is a limited hangout, or not.

Haven't been here very long, huh? You JUST derailed the thread.

 

[Paulie]

Haven't been here very long, huh? You JUST derailed the thread.

Well then, let's just stay off Plame. I'm about tired of that debate anyway.

 

[trobinett]

Through these past few years, I've heard Bush voters get completely mixed up, and totally misinformed about who attacked us on 9/11, who our real enemies are, and blow off important distinctions between groups and nations in the muslim world.

I've heard NeoCons call Al Qaeda "shia" muslims; I've heard them claim that Iran and Al Qaeda are in league, and that for some reason, all theocratic muslims must lumped under the same umbrella, as a threat to us.

As the new Zawahiri video demonstrates, Al Qaeda actually consider they shia to be dogs, they consider Iran to be their enemy, and they actually consider Iran to be a tacit US ally in the occupation and subjugation (their perception) of Iraqi sunnis.


new video released by al-Qaeda's number 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri.





http://www.juancole.com/

Are you TRULY this fucked up, or are you just putting us on?

 

[maineman]

Are you TRULY this fucked up, or are you just putting us on?

rather than just cast aspersions, why not tell us what about DCD's post you take issue with? Why not refute his assertion that you neocons don't have a clue who the players are and how they are connected?

Why not? Because you aren't smart enough to, and couldn't even if you were.

 

[Alpha1]

Forget 9/11 ?

Blame America ?

Side with the Jihadists ?

-------------------------------------------------
We have met the enemy...and they are Democrats!

 

[maineman]

Forget 9/11 ?

Blame America ?

Side with the Jihadists ?

-------------------------------------------------
We have met the enemy...and they are Democrats!

off the meds again, I see. pity.

what the fuck does that have to do with the post?

No one has forgetten 9/11.

No one blames America.

No one sides with the jihadists...

DCD's point was, you have no idea who the enemy is, or isn't...you have no idea what the dynamic is concerning the convoluted sectarian struggle that is overlaid upon the islamic extremist movement... and this idiotic post of yours only drives home his point.

moron.

 

[Alpha1]

Forget 9/11 ?
No mention of it, thats plain

Blame America ?
"Why are the main top dogs as far as the supposed most wanted terrorists, even THEMSELVES saying that it's our occupations, and overall interventionist policy that is pissing them off to the point of jihad?"
Sounds like it....

Side with the Jihadists ?
"So now Zawahiri even makes statements that ought to make you understand what our aggressive interventionist policy is doing to us."

Sounds like it...
-------------------------------------------------

"But, given the complete ineptness of the Bush admin., in hindsight, I think this whole thing should have been handled more surgically, through special operations, intelligence, and law enforcement, and covert ops. That was the way to deal with it. It shouldn't have been a "war on terror". DCD

Then General DCD thinks it could have all been handled by the Rangers or Navy Seals and CIA and New Yorks finest.....
Amazing how children the world....

We have met the enemy...and they are Democrats!

-

 

[DeadCanDance]

Forget 9/11 ?

Blame America ?

Side with the Jihadists ?

Your a moron. This isn't even related to my post.

The point is, to know the enemy. So you Neocons don't keep getting us sidetracked attacking the wrong people, or focusing on phantom threats

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.

If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

-- SUN TZU, The Art of War

 

[Alpha1]

http://www.scienceofstrategy.com/History/text_meaning.htm

I've seen these simplistic little references to Sun Tzu a number of times....
You've no clue really....