PDA

View Full Version : Michael Scheuer on National Security


hcap
08-24-2006, 05:46 AM
http://www.harpers.org/sb-seven-michael-scheuer-1156277744.html

Six Questions for Michael Scheuer on National Security

Michael Scheuer served in the CIA for 22 years before resigning in 2004; he served as the chief of the bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He is the formerly anonymous author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America.


7- And finally, an extra question—what needs to be done?

This may be a country bumpkin approach, but the truth is the best place to start. We need to acknowledge that we are at war, not because of who we are, but because of what we do. We are confronting a jihad that is inspired by the tangible and visible impact of our policies. People are willing to die for that, and we're not going to win by killing them off one by one. We have a dozen years of reliable polling in the Middle East, and it shows overwhelming hostility to our policies—and at the same time it shows majorities that admire the way we live, our ability to feed and clothe our children and find work. We need to tell the truth to set the stage for a discussion of our foreign policy.

At the core of the debate is oil. As long as we and our allies are dependent on Gulf oil, we can't do anything about the perception that we support Arab tyranny—the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and other regimes in the region. Without the problem of oil, who cares who rules Saudi Arabia? If we solved the oil problem, we could back away from the contradiction of being democracy promoters and tyranny protectors. We should have started on this back in 1973, at the time of the first Arab oil embargo, but we've never moved away from our dependence. As it stands, we are going to have to fight wars if anything endangers the oil spply in the Middle East. "

JustRalph
08-24-2006, 12:06 PM
yep, the U.S. founding fathers wrote somewhere in the Quran that it is our fault because we are infidels.........so go kill Westerners............


Just another American hater.

skate
08-24-2006, 01:08 PM
"start with the truth" you say...


oh how i knew it was goona be ggooood.

hey hey, look, so its oil.
so, we pay for the oil, right?

then what,huh?

they got money (worth) only because sombody uses that oil. otherwise what?\

the oil would sit and nothing would happen, right.
so its uncle georges fault. they don't use that oil money (they get fromn us) and put it to better use, my fault, huh.

oh oh oh yes, i gots to understand Them, hey i have enough trouble, understanding...

kenwoodallpromos
08-24-2006, 03:18 PM
"Until recently, with a significant offshore natural gas discovery, Israel has had essentially no commercial fossil fuel resources of its own, and has been forced to depend almost exclusively on imports to meet its energy needs. Israel has attempted to diversify its supply sources and to utilize alternatives like solar and wind energy. Traditionally, Israel has relied on expensive, long-term contracts with nations like Mexico (oil), Norway (oil), the United Kingdom (oil), Australia (coal), South Africa (coal), and Colombia (coal) for its energy supplies. Israel also has pursued other, cheaper sources of energy, like Egyptian gas."
_
If the problem is oil, why do the Muslims refuse to sell any to Israel?
Why did Hussein lob SCUDS at Israel since he had the oil and Israel did not?

Tom
08-24-2006, 03:19 PM
Because he worshiped money ore than allah.

Secretariat
08-24-2006, 08:40 PM
If the problem is oil, why do the Muslims refuse to sell any to Israel?
Why did Hussein lob SCUDS at Israel since he had the oil and Israel did not?

The problem as regards to Israel is land and tribal rights, pure and simple. Muslims do not accept Israel's right to exist so why would they sell to them. This in some ways is more difficult to address than greed and oil.

For example iif after our American Indian Wars, and Utah had already been settled by Mormons, if the government had said - the Mormons now have to move off their land because the Indians were once on that land, and it is considered sacred to them, one wonders if the Mormons would so easily evacuate from Salt Lake.

This is the kind of issue we are dealing with here. Frankly, it goes way beyond terrorism there. Terorrism is just the tool used by a people that has considerably less technologcial capaibltiy than its enemey and is in essence fighting a guerrilla war in which civilians are consdered collateral damage as a part of the enemy. Defeating terrorism in the Israeli situation is difficult, because the goal is not terrorism, but the goal is the recovery of Israel for a muslim state. This is why in our lifetimes I do not ever seeing this being resolved. Neither side will budge on this, and there will be pauses. The major danger (or as some would say resolution) would be a catastrophic event (on either side).

The oil issue is a seperate issue and does not affect Israeil, but it creates strange bedfellows wherein the oil industry which is interested in controlling mideast oil (and from their POV I understand that) joins with AIPAC which stands for the preservation of Israel at all costs. So begins the birth of the neocons of staunchly orthodox Jews like Lieberman or Richard Perle or Wolfowitz who join with oil cartels (represented by GW and Cheney) to create a potent political force. They work together and can generate massive amounts of funds to affect federal policy. The Iraq War promised large oil reserves for the oil cartel (which because of the lack of stability in Iraq has not materialized), and the AIPAC lobby has eliminated the threat of Iraq with Hussein lobbying scuds toward Israel. Both forces joined create the neocon policies for this administration which is based on thier own self interests, and have cost this country dearly in lives, wounded, and burgeoning deficits. In that regard, the neocons have done exactly what they set out to do. The question is whether that is good for America, and obviously, as was said in Cool Hand Luke, "we have a difference of opinion."

kenwoodallpromos
08-24-2006, 10:46 PM
You've got me convinced that were do imperiaslism too much and often for greed.
But 2 comments- Iraq's oil fields are not in Bahgdad. We will move their oil but not until after they get their own act together, if they ever do. Then maybe we will even let then have some electricity.
As far as your Israel- Indian analogy, I think a better comparison would be the California casino indians.
In Ca the indians were screwed over and most land taken over like the Cherokees after discovery of gold in Georgia, and som Ca indians were moved several times. Then the indians figured out how to do the casino thing and it is working out very well- as a matter of fact, so well that now the rich white Ca landowners who are into racing are trying to steal money from the indians because racing hasn't got a clue! They can't figure out that casinos in Ca do not charge admission!LOL!
Regardless of when you start the ownership clock in Israel, the Muslims did nothing with the land and Israel improved it greatly after they got it, now the
Muslims want it back. What great improvements are going on in Muslimland? Destroying ancient statues or moving them around!LOL!!

hcap
09-03-2006, 05:51 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/books/review/20Bamford.html?ex=1157342400&en=dba6041efc7ee01c&ei=5070

Intelligence Test
Review by JAMES BAMFORD
Published: August 20, 2006

"As the Middle East becomes an incubator for an army of future bin Ladens, it is a good time to look back at where, for Americans, it all began. The most comprehensive examination of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was conducted by the 9/11 Commission, chaired by Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Now Kean, a former governor of New Jersey, and Hamilton, a former congressman from Indiana, have written “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission.”

....These questions fell to Supervisory Special Agent James Fitzgerald. “I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States,” he said. “They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States.” As if to reinforce the point, the commission discovered that the original plan for 9/11 envisioned an even larger attack. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the strategist of the 9/11 plot, “was going to fly the final plane, land it and make ‘a speech denouncing U.S. policies in the Middle East,’” Kean and Hamilton say, quoting a staff statement. And they continue: “Lee felt that there had to be an acknowledgment that a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was vital to America’s long-term relationship with the Islamic world, and that the presence of American forces in the Middle East was a major motivating factor in Al Qaeda’s actions.”

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1785

9/11 Commission Chairmen Admit Whitewashing the Cause of the Attacks
August 7, 2006
Ivan Eland

"As both the Bush administration and its client government in Israel, with their invasions of Arab states in Iraq and Lebanon, respectively, make the United States ever more hated in the Islamic world, a new book by the chairmen of the 9/11 commission admits that the commission whitewashed the root cause of the 9/11 attacks—that same interventionist U.S. foreign policy.

...Some commissioners wanted to cover up the link between the 9/11 attack and U.S. support for Israel because this might imply that the United States should alter policy and lessen its support for Israeli actions. How right they were. The question is simple: if the vast bulk of Americans would be safer if U.S. politicians moderated their slavish support of Israel, designed to win the support of key pressure groups at home, wouldn’t it be a good idea to make this change in course? Average U.S. citizens might attenuate their support for Israel if the link between the 9/11 attacks and unquestioning U.S. favoritism for Israeli excesses were more widely known. Similarly, if American taxpayers knew that the expensive and unnecessary U.S. policy of intervening in the affairs of countries all over the world—including the U.S. military presence in the Middle East—made them less secure from terrorist attacks at home, pressure would likely build for an abrupt change to a more restrained U.S. foreign policy. But like the original 9/11 Commission report, President Bush regularly obscures this important reality by saying that America was attacked on 9/11 because of its freedoms, making no mention of U.S. interventionist foreign policy as the root cause.

Yet numerous public opinion polls in the Islamic world repeatedly prove the president wrong. The surveys show that people in Islamic countries admire American political and economic freedoms, culture, and technology. But when Muslims are polled on the level of their approval of U.S. foreign policy, the numbers go through the floor. Much of this negative attitude derives from mindless U.S. backing of anything Israel does. In addition, Osama bin Laden has repeatedly written or stated that he attacks the United States because of its military presence in the Persian Gulf and its support for Israel and corrupt regimes in the Arab world."

Show Me the Wire
09-03-2006, 07:53 AM
hcap:

You should read and understand sec's post #6 wher he correctly identifies the real problem as land rights.

Everything else is tangental.

ljb
09-03-2006, 09:17 AM
smtw,
You too should read Sec's post. He states it was a joining of forces between the land rights folks (Lieberman, Perle and Wolfowitz) and the oil barons (Bush and Cheney) that are the root cause of our current problems in the mideast.

lsbets
09-03-2006, 09:30 AM
Interesting - so according to you guys the root of our problems in the Middle East is the alliance between Jews and oilmen. All along I thought the problem was a radical sect of Islam that wants to kill or convert everyone who does not accept their religion. Damn I got fooled. :bang:

The anti-Semetism that now pervades the left in this country speaks volumes about its moral bankruptcy.

BenDiesel26
09-03-2006, 10:32 AM
Interesting - so according to you guys the root of our problems in the Middle East is the alliance between Jews and oilmen. All along I thought the problem was a radical sect of Islam that wants to kill or convert everyone who does not accept their religion. Damn I got fooled. :bang:

The anti-Semetism that now pervades the left in this country speaks volumes about its moral bankruptcy.

But I thought that it was the US that is evil, according to the NY Times anyways...

article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5309376.stm)

Al-Qaeda calls on US to convert

Al-Qaeda has urged non-Muslims - especially in the US - to convert to Islam, according to a new videotape.

The call is made by a man identified on the film as "Azzam the American", a convert also known as Adam Gadahn who is wanted for questioning by the FBI.

He says ignorance of Islam leads Westerners to accept wars waged by their governments and Israel against Muslim countries.


hmmmmm...so it is us holding their countries down. I could have sworn that their theocratical dictatorships that choose to spend money harboring terrorists and waging war propaganda 24/7 within their countries could be better served by spending some of that money on bettering their own countries. This has been going on since the late 70's by the way.

Show Me the Wire
09-03-2006, 11:30 AM
smtw,
You too should read Sec's post. He states it was a joining of forces between the land rights folks (Lieberman, Perle and Wolfowitz) and the oil barons (Bush and Cheney) that are the root cause of our current problems in the mideast.


I did and I understand the difference between root cause and tangental.

lsbets:

The religious fight over the land and the right of Israel to exist led to the explosion (literal too) of the radical jihadist muslems.

ljb
09-03-2006, 11:56 AM
Interesting - so according to you guys the root of our problems in the Middle East is the alliance between Jews and oilmen. All along I thought the problem was a radical sect of Islam that wants to kill or convert everyone who does not accept their religion. Damn I got fooled. :bang:

The anti-Semetism that now pervades the left in this country speaks volumes about its moral bankruptcy.
ls,
I don't want to go down the road of "root cause". This goes back centuries. However my thoughts are, the U.S.'s strong support of Israel along with their dependency on oil led to a coalition as mentioned by Sec. And this of course led to the invasion of Iraq. If you want to spin this statement into anti-Semetism, you have the right to do so, even though you are wrong. :sleeping:

ljb
09-03-2006, 12:02 PM
I did and I understand the difference between root cause and tangental.

lsbets:

The religious fight over the land and the right of Israel to exist led to the explosion (literal too) of the radical jihadist muslems.
smtw,
It is the tangental item that formed the coalition that supported the invasion of Iraq.
Israel would not have invaded Iraq sans provocation. The oil barons made up provacative stories supporting the decision to invade Iraq.
And like I said to ls, "root cause" here goes back centuries.

Tom
09-03-2006, 12:25 PM
smtw,
You too should read Sec's post. He states it was a joining of forces between the land rights folks (Lieberman, Perle and Wolfowitz) and the oil barons (Bush and Cheney) that are the root cause of our current problems in the mideast.

And jsut waht was the root ause for the coninuing terror attacks against he US and it's satellites all throughout hte Clinton years?

WTC I
Emabassies
Barracks
Blackhawk Helicopters
USS cole

What has changed, oh knowledgable one.
Plaese tell us - what is the first root cause?

Anyone who says they arab world didn't hate us before Iraq is a blooming idiot!

ljb
09-03-2006, 04:53 PM
And jsut waht was the root ause for the coninuing terror attacks against he US and it's satellites all throughout hte Clinton years?

WTC I
Emabassies
Barracks
Blackhawk Helicopters
USS cole

What has changed, oh knowledgable one.
Plaese tell us - what is the first root cause?

Anyone who says they arab world didn't hate us before Iraq is a blooming idiot!

Like i said, numerous times. the root cause goes back centuries.

Tom
09-03-2006, 05:23 PM
Well, then , that kind of rules out Bush, the war in Iraq, and Israel - none of which have been around for centuries.

Le's see, who's that leave......????

ljb
09-04-2006, 08:00 AM
Whatever . :rolleyes:

Indulto
09-05-2006, 01:04 PM
... The anti-Semetism that now pervades the left in this country speaks volumes about its moral bankruptcy.What evidence do you have that anti-semitism PERVADES any segment of our political spectrum?

If you are equating anti-semitism with advocacy of protecting the civil rights of Muslim-American citizens, or recognizing that most Muslims don't advocate or endorse violence against Jews, or believing that Muslim-Americans are capable of separating their antipathy towards Israeli military action from their own religious convictions, then IMO your statement assumes a McCarthy-esque posture.

Show Me the Wire
09-05-2006, 01:20 PM
What evidence do you have that anti-semitism PERVADES any segment of our political spectrum?

If you are equating anti-semitism with advocacy of protecting the civil rights of Muslim-American citizens, or recognizing that most Muslims don't advocate or endorse violence against Jews, or believing that Muslim-Americans are capable of separating their antipathy towards Israeli military action from their own religious convictions, then IMO your statement assumes a McCarthy-esque posture.


What evidence do you have to support your assertion thet most muslims don't advocate or endorse violence against Jewish people?

Again what evidence can you cite about your assertion that Muslim-Americans are capable of separating their antipathy towards israelfrom religious convictions?

lsbets
09-05-2006, 01:24 PM
What evidence do you have that anti-semitism PERVADES any segment of our political spectrum?

If you are equating anti-semitism with advocacy of protecting the civil rights of Muslim-American citizens, or recognizing that most Muslims don't advocate or endorse violence against Jews, or believing that Muslim-Americans are capable of separating their antipathy towards Israeli military action from their own religious convictions, then IMO your statement assumes a McCarthy-esque posture.

One only needs to look at the start of the anti-Lieberman effort to see that the fringe left of the nutroots is full of anti-semetic inuendo. Lieberman was called a "dreidelcon" on the most prominant lefty sites. It was alleged that he casts votes based on the best interests of Israel, not America (meanwhile I have not seen that allegation made towards any non-Jewish Democrats who voted for the war). On the first page of this thread it was asserted that our foreign policy is controlled by an alliance of Jews and oilmen. Whether the anti-semetism is truly heartfelt or used as a political tool I have no way of knowing, but it is unquestionable that anti-Semetism pervades the left today.

Indulto
09-05-2006, 02:22 PM
One only needs to look at the start of the anti-Lieberman effort to see that the fringe left of the nutroots is full of anti-semetic inuendo. Lieberman was called a "dreidelcon" on the most prominant lefty sites.You didn't specify which sites are "prominent lefty" or any reasons why it is safe to assume the anti-semitism such utterences obviously
represent are "pervasive" among progressives.It was alleged that he casts votes based on the best interests of Israel, not America (meanwhile I have not seen that allegation made towards any non-Jewish Democrats who voted for the war).Frankly, as a self-professed religious Jewi who wishes to represent a predominantly non-Jewish constituency, Lieberman needs to do a better job of explaining why Israeli interests coincide with U.S. interests in ways that have nothing to do with religion.

For example, Israel is a true democracy despite the influence of the ultra-religious segment of the population which is almost a separate religion within this highly homogeneous society. Americans should be encouraged by their more participatory democracy which permits their soldiers to independently question and criticize their political (and to a lesser extent) military leadership.On the first page of this thread it was asserted that our foreign policy is controlled by an alliance of Jews and oilmen.The overwhelming majority of the left-leaning minority on this board are hardly anti-semites. And since when does anything posted here affect the real world?Whether the anti-semetism is truly heartfelt or used as a political tool I have no way of knowing, but it is unquestionable that anti-Semetism pervades the left today.Your assertion remains unsubstantiated.:D

Indulto
09-05-2006, 02:31 PM
What evidence do you have to support your assertion thet most muslims don't advocate or endorse violence against Jewish people?

Again what evidence can you cite about your assertion that Muslim-Americans are capable of separating their antipathy towards israelfrom religious convictions?Silly More Than Witty

I see you have resumed your parrot imitation.:D

I just had to respond to ask you what happened to your old trailer: Did you finally realize that your perceptions had nothing to do with reality? ;)

Show Me the Wire
09-05-2006, 03:00 PM
Wasn't being witty, being, probative, asking for your justification regarding your absurd allegation of McCarthy-esque posture based on your ridiculous suppositions..

If you expect others to justify, you should be held to your own standards.

hcap
09-05-2006, 04:48 PM
LsOne only needs to look at the start of the anti-Lieberman effort to see that the fringe left of the nutroots is full of anti-semetic inuendo. Lieberman was called a "dreidelcon" on the most prominant lefty sites.Okay what sites? One can be against Israels' specific actions and not be anti-semetic.
I am against this crowd in office and their misguided adventures but am not anti american.

Secretariat
09-05-2006, 05:09 PM
I recommend a wonderful documentary called Why We Fight. I saw it at a friend's this Labor Day. It deals with Eisenhower's warnings. This is loaded with Republican interviews inclduing one of John McCain interrupted by a phone call from the VP.

hcap
09-05-2006, 05:53 PM
The closest reference to lieberman and deidel is "human dreidel"
Search
http://www.technorati.com/search/dreidelcon
or /"human dreidel"

I believe it was used to demonstrate joe's ability to spin like crazy. Not at all anti-semitic. And only six references. Ls, I think you have been to too many rightie blogs, that don,t check their sources :lol:

http://www.billybear4kids.com/holidays/hanukkah/dreidela.gif

Say hello to joe

Tom
09-05-2006, 06:00 PM
You supported him for vice president, now he is spin meister.

lsbets
09-05-2006, 06:22 PM
Hcap, you can try to spin all you want, but the fact is, while I don't put you down at their level, you keep some very ugly and hateful company. Did I say anything about Israel's specific actions? Nope, I mentioned attacks directed at Lieberman based on nothing but his religion and I mentioned the allegation that our foreign policy is controlled by "Jews and oilmen."

Secretariat
09-05-2006, 06:43 PM
Interesting - so according to you guys the root of our problems in the Middle East is the alliance between Jews and oilmen. All along I thought the problem was a radical sect of Islam that wants to kill or convert everyone who does not accept their religion. Damn I got fooled. :bang:

The anti-Semetism that now pervades the left in this country speaks volumes about its moral bankruptcy.

In essense that is the "root" of our problems. One has to ask "why" was there not a radical sect of Islam that wanted to kill and convert everyone who did not accept their religion PRIOR to the estabishment of Israel? Why were there no attacks on US solil by Arabs PRIOR to the establishment of Israel? Why do the Muslims speak about the raping of their land to make America rich?

Is an Arab an anti-Semite if they want their land back? We are not talking about the left being anti-Semitic, we are talkiing about the "root" cause of why these people are bobming America and why their is so much violence in the Mid East.

You are attempting to put a political spin on my post. The goal was not left or right, but to honestly attempt to identify why the violence does not subside. It is not a matter of abandoning Israel, but looking at the unequivocal support of them at all costs.

I stand by my post.

1. Land and tribal claims.

2. The power of oil. Oil means big money, especially in lieu of increasing prices. Oil is the one economic weapon they have. Anyone who does not think oil is one of the root causes is beoing naive. Ask yourself, would we be there "if" there was no oil on Iraqi lands, and there was no Israel situation?

The answer is of course not. One only needs to look at Darfur, or the Sudan to see the answer. How much have we spent in that country to stop the terrorism there?

lsbets
09-05-2006, 06:51 PM
Stand by your post, I stand by mine.

Sudan is an outstanding example of radical Muslims killing in the name of religion where it has nothing at all to do with Israel or oil. Tons of other examples. All you need to do is look around.

Secretariat
09-05-2006, 07:15 PM
Stand by your post, I stand by mine.

Sudan is an outstanding example of radical Muslims killing in the name of religion where it has nothing at all to do with Israel or oil. Tons of other examples. All you need to do is look around.

Exactly my point. There is no Israel, and no oil, and as a result, no United States involvement.

Show Me the Wire
09-05-2006, 07:17 PM
No oil in Afghanstan either.

hcap
09-05-2006, 07:19 PM
Afghanistan had terrorists bases, Osama.
I don't know enough about Sudan to comment

Tom, yeah I supported him for vice president. Damn look at the choice we were given. Lieberman-wimp and democrat. Cheney, puppet master and Prince Machievelli on steroids. No brainer.

Ls, look I never said "that our foreign policy is controlled by "Jews and oilmen." Secs last post is pretty accurate.
Also once again Scheur ......

"We are confronting a jihad that is inspired by the tangible and visible impact of our policies. People are willing to die for that, and we're not going to win by killing them off one by one. We have a dozen years of reliable polling in the Middle East, and it shows overwhelming hostility to our policies

....At the core of the debate is oil. As long as we and our allies are dependent on Gulf oil, we can't do anything about the perception that we support Arab tyranny—the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and other regimes in the region. Without the problem of oil, who cares who rules Saudi Arabia? If we solved the oil problem, we could back away from the contradiction of being democracy promoters and tyranny protectors. We should have started on this back in 1973, at the time of the first Arab oil embargo, but we've never moved away from our dependence. As it stands, we are going to have to fight wars if anything endangers the oil spply in the Middle East. "

So we have national vested interests because of oil, and are backing Israel in uneven strategic for us, ways. Recently Israel overreacted to Hezbzllah and as I said is paying for it, and so are we. And don't forget part and parcel of the uncle sam jihadist recruitment agency is the war in Iraq. The tactics of disrupting terrorist cells and stopping attacks works short term, but it's not resolving the strategic problem. The ranks keep on coming.

Now Iraq is at best on the way to civil war. At worst, it's already there and we are smack-dab in the middle of it. Youse guys are bandying about
"Islamofascism" as the lastest justification for empire also tend to quote Santayana, "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Here's what's really happening youse guys cannot remember the past correctly and blabber on and on about hitler-chamberlain ,are eternally condemned to mindlessly repeat Santayana's observation about those who cannot remember the past.

BTW, I found this. "Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a mainstay of Internet culture, an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. It is particularly concerned with logical fallacies such as reductio ad Hitlerum, wherein an idea is unduly dismissed or rejected on ground of it being associated with persons generally considered "evil".

Youse guys are guilty of ad Hitlerum

lsbets
09-05-2006, 07:25 PM
Exactly my point. There is no Israel, and no oil, and as a result, no United States involvement.

But that doesn't exactly jive with the assertion (and in this case not yours) that the only reason there are jihad lunatics is Israel and our foreign policy.

Show Me the Wire
09-05-2006, 07:28 PM
hcap:

Correct Afgahnstan had terrorist basis belonging to A Queda. There is your connection to Iraq. Sponsorsip of terrorism by Iraq, including Al Queda.

No linkage to Sudan, that is why no U.S. involvement.

It really is simple. No?

Show Me the Wire
09-05-2006, 07:30 PM
But that doesn't exactly jive with the assertion (and in this case not yours) that the only reason there are jihad lunatics is Israel and our foreign policy.

That is what happens when you paint with too broad of a brush, ie. global terrorism is a direct result of U.S. foreign policy.

Are you listening Sen. Harry Reid?

hcap
09-05-2006, 07:53 PM
SMTWCorrect Afgahnstan had terrorist basis belonging to A Queda. There is your connection to Iraq. Sponsorsip of terrorism by Iraq, including Al Queda.

No linkage to Sudan, that is why no U.S. involvement.

It really is simple. No?No. First of all our involvement and support for the Afghan rebels during the soviet occupation helped create Al Qaeda and bin laden. Blowback, 18 years later. History should really be spelled Herstory, cause she's a bitch
Secondly what do you mean There is your connection to Iraq?
I repeat
911<>IRAQ<>Saddam

Show Me the Wire
09-05-2006, 08:05 PM
hcap:

Yes, many post ago, I pointed out Jimmy's failed foreign policy of financing the Afghan rebels, when e had no idea of why Russia even invaded Afganistan. He erroneously believed in the domino theory.

The link is Iraq's sponsorship of terrorirsm and terrorist organizations , including Al Queda, that had goals of doing grave and serious harm to Israel and the U.S.

Pretty simple.

Al Queda was and still is our enemy and so are other terrorist groups bent on harm and destruction to Israel and the U.S.

Secretariat
09-05-2006, 08:49 PM
No oil in Afghanstan either.

There's a huge UNOCAL pipeline going through it..which btw was negotiated almsot immediately upon Karzai taking power.

Secretariat
09-05-2006, 08:50 PM
But that doesn't exactly jive with the assertion (and in this case not yours) that the only reason there are jihad lunatics is Israel and our foreign policy.

It jives with attacks on the US.

Secretariat
09-05-2006, 08:52 PM
hcap:

Correct Afgahnstan had terrorist basis belonging to A Queda. There is your connection to Iraq. Sponsorsip of terrorism by Iraq, including Al Queda.
No linkage to Sudan, that is why no U.S. involvement.

It really is simple. No?

This one just doesn't make sense.

lsbets
09-05-2006, 08:55 PM
It jives with attacks on the US.

If the jihadists only attacked the US and Israel than it would. However, they do not limit their attacks to the US, Israel, and our allies. The really only limit their attacks to, well no one really, they don't limit who they attack. Why do they attack everyone else?

Show Me the Wire
09-05-2006, 09:20 PM
This one just doesn't make sense.


Clarified in above post, I think #40. Link is sponsorship of terrorist organizations that want to harm and or destroy Israel and U.S. Afghan through Taliban man sponsored terrorist that viewed Israel and the U.S. as an enemy and so did Iraq continue to sponsor such groups with like minded goals.

Or are you saying the part about Iraq being a sponsor of terrorism does not make sense?

Tom
09-05-2006, 09:46 PM
Little Adolf in Iran has told universities to get rid of professors who do not agree with his views.

Like Hitler, this little tyrant is going after the youth.

Had everyone forgotten history?

Secretariat
09-05-2006, 09:49 PM
Clarified in above post, I think #40. Link is sponsorship of terrorist organizations that want to harm and or destroy Israel and U.S. Afghan through Taliban man sponsored terrorist that viewed Israel and the U.S. as an enemy and so did Iraq continue to sponsor such groups with like minded goals.

Or are you saying the part about Iraq being a sponsor of terrorism does not make sense?

I am saying the link to Iraqi sponsored terrorist links to Bin Laden is simply not substantiated. Bin Laden despised the Sunni's and the secularist Hussein. I coudl see links to Iran before I could see ones to Hussein.

Jordan does not belevie in Israel's right to exists, nor Syria either (which does sponsor Hezbollah), yet we did not invade there. We invaded as was debated in the Congress on the "grave" threat of WMD's. A slam dunk i belevie it was called. Except sometimes people miss slam dunks.

This labored effort to tie Al Queda to Hussein, and somehow create a 911 tie is what some posters have been trying to do for the last 5 years to justify the admisntration's mistake there. People are realizing they've been sold a crock. and are wondering why Bin Laden has still not been captured. Even GW has said Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

Secretariat
09-05-2006, 09:55 PM
If the jihadists only attacked the US and Israel than it would. However, they do not limit their attacks to the US, Israel, and our allies. The really only limit their attacks to, well no one really, they don't limit who they attack. Why do they attack everyone else?

Well, first, they don't attack everyone else. Their response is that we attack everyone else globally, and have more bases globally than any country does.

That said...there are always extremist groups, like the Klan was in this country, like McVeigh, and even in old days the pirates that terrorized ships on the sea. These people "enlist" recruits due to their hatred of Israel and the US, not becasue they want to take over an African country.

Tom
09-05-2006, 09:58 PM
Well, first, they don't attack everyone else. Their response is that we attack everyone else globally, and have more bases globally than any country does.



Where have you been? They attack everywhere.
46 posted infor about ovber 5,000 teror attacks in the last year, or 4 years, something like that.

Bali, Spain, are they US terriotories?

Secretariat
09-05-2006, 11:06 PM
Where have you been? They attack everywhere.
46 posted infor about ovber 5,000 teror attacks in the last year, or 4 years, something like that.

Bali, Spain, are they US terriotories?

Are you saying there's more terrorism worldwide since 911?

hcap
09-06-2006, 08:00 AM
Another Inconveniant truth

A struggle for control of the Strategic Ellipse, which just happens demographically to be mostly Muslim.

http://www.juancole.com/graphics/reserves2.jpg

hcap
09-06-2006, 08:18 AM
TomLittle Adolf in Iran has told universities to get rid of professors who do not agree with his views.
Like Hitler, this little tyrant is going after the youth.
Had everyone forgotten history?
I saidBTW, I found this. "Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a mainstay of Internet culture, an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. It is particularly concerned with logical fallacies such as reductio ad Hitlerum, wherein an idea is unduly dismissed or rejected on ground of it being associated with persons generally considered "evil".

Youse guys are guilty of ad Hitlerum
Ad Hitlerum Tom

hcap
09-06-2006, 10:25 AM
Ad Hitlerum??
Ad Slaveownerum?

Codi Rice sayz..

"I'm sure there are people who thought it was a mistake to fight the Civil War to its end and to insist that the emancipation of slaves would hold," Rice tells Essence. "I know there were people who said, 'Why don't we get out of this now, take a peace with the South, but leave the South with slaves?'"

ljb
09-06-2006, 10:30 AM
They (the neocons) are pulling out all the stops. A little earlier then I expected but then, the polls don't look good. :D

Tom
09-06-2006, 07:50 PM
Are you saying there's more terrorism worldwide since 911?

Do you have a comprehension problem?
How could I be clearer?
YES.
Because of people like YOU.
Be proud, boy - you got blood on you.
And you sit back in your little political dreamwolrd while innocent people die.

Show Me the Wire
09-07-2006, 01:11 PM
They (the neocons) are pulling out all the stops. A little earlier then I expected but then, the polls don't look good. :D


That is just the way the Repubs want them. Remeber the last presidential election, Kerry was a lock according to the polls.

46zilzal
09-07-2006, 01:37 PM
Do you have a comprehension problem?
How could I be clearer?
YES.
Because of people like YOU.
Be proud, boy - you got blood on you.
And you sit back in your little political dreamwolrd while innocent people die.

I would suggest trying to prove this allegation.

hcap
09-07-2006, 03:12 PM
TomBe proud, boy - you got blood on you.
And you sit back in your little political dreamwolrd while innocent people die.46, Tom is using the same crap his leeeduuur and minions use

Ad Hitlerum
Ad Infinitum

Of course this after 90% of his off topic posts call for indiscriminate nuclear anihilation of Muslems

46zilzal
09-07-2006, 03:16 PM
Of course this after 90% of his off topic posts call for indiscriminate nuclear anihilation of Muslems
noticed that KILL KILL KILL stance as an idea to everything

Secretariat
09-07-2006, 06:26 PM
Do you have a comprehension problem?
How could I be clearer?
YES.
Because of people like YOU.
Be proud, boy - you got blood on you.
And you sit back in your little political dreamwolrd while innocent people die.

Thank you Tom for finally admitting that terrorism is increasing. I would be interested in how you were able to contact Osama and talk to him about how I am responsible for inspriing him to terrorist acts. Innocent people are dying, as you accurately state, due to the current poor policies that are causing more and more Muslims to become jihadists.

btw...you reference to the iranian Hitler getting rid of college professors. That surprises me since your previous posts have always denigrated college professors as wacko liberals. It is interesting that the movement in Iran is a far "right" movement.

Tom
09-07-2006, 11:11 PM
Ah Sec, the master of spin. You left out the word worldwide.
Yes, terrorism is increasing.
No, it is not here.

Yes, it is only a matter of time before the next attack here, thanks to people like you, who support and protect terrorists.

Do you honestly believe that our involvment in Iraq could turn intelligent people into terroists? They were animals long before we went over there.

So let me ask you, if you tink terroism is on the rise, why do you always take thier side and always have a hissy fit whenever Bush does something to stop them? Why do you spin legitimate montioring of phone calls to terrorist countries into domestic spying, when you know very well that is a total lie? Why do you worry about torturing those who behead their prisoners?
Sec, Bin Laden could use a lot more like YOU.