STRIKES ON SYRIA ?

What in the world is going on?
knip
Posts: 606
Joined: September 10th, 2004, 9:33 pm
Location: C-A-N-A-D-A

Post by knip » January 17th, 2005, 9:36 pm

saying that if the americans really wanted to get osama they would is simply naive...the logic train between that concept and a theory that they want him alive and kicking seems ludicrous to me

i don't discount any possibility in these things, but that seems quite far out there, to me

yes, the americans lost their chance when they sent the northern alliance after him...but turning that around into a conspiracy theory is kind of weird...additionally, all those times where clinton apparently had a chance to get him is nonsense...they were all based on single intel streams, which is not enough to assassinate someone

User avatar
abcrystcats
Posts: 619
Joined: August 20th, 2004, 9:37 pm

Post by abcrystcats » January 17th, 2005, 10:25 pm

I truly don't think it's THAT naive to assume we could get Osama if we really wanted to. Haven't you seen the footage of Prez. Bush making light of the issue when someone asked him what they were doing about Osama? His behavior is purely circumstantial evidence that our administration doesn't care to pursue the issue, but my instincts tell me that they really don't. I admit it's not an idea I can logically defend, all I have is "gut" on this.

But when it comes to really KNOWING what our government wants and intends to do, do we ever really have more than "gut" to back us up? When Pearl Harbor happened, every American assumed that the government couldn't possibly have been aware of the Japanese intentions to attack. We figured that the whole thing was a diabolical plot slipped under our noses without any American complicity. Now, many MANY people believe that FDR deliberately silenced advance communications indicating the Japanese were going to attack. He manipulated our Navy so that they would be conveniently out of the way when the attack occurred.

In the 1940s it was unthinkable that the American government would actually allow an American port to be attacked, for any reason. Now, you are using the same logic and applying it to the "hunt" (or lack thereof) for Osama Bin Ladin. You are giving the government the benefit of your logic and implicit faith in the straightforwardness of their actions.

I don't.

I can't defend my position using logic of any kind, but I think that if you study history (and I know you do) you'll realize that it's impossible for us to predict what the American government is going to do next by applying common sense or logic. The truth about Pearl Harbor defies all "logical" beliefs the American public has ever had about the actions of its government.

I also don't think it's a "conspiracy theory" to believe the Osama's existence serves a purpose for this government by helping to justify this silly war. George and Osama don't have to be "in bed" together or exchanging emails for George to see the usefulness of Osama's existence out there. FDR wasn't in cahoots with the Japanese, either, but he let them attack Pearl Harbor to get America into the war. Same song, second verse ...

knip
Posts: 606
Joined: September 10th, 2004, 9:33 pm
Location: C-A-N-A-D-A

Post by knip » January 17th, 2005, 10:39 pm

check your history, cat...the FACT about FDR and pearl harbour is not FACT...it is an ill-conceived theory

the main reason i understand why osama hasn't been caught is because i understand the region and the cultural conditions somewhat, and the tactics required to find such a guy quite well....you can choose to believe whatever you like, but i will tell you your opinions on america's ability to find a needle in a haystack are entirely inflated

User avatar
abcrystcats
Posts: 619
Joined: August 20th, 2004, 9:37 pm

Post by abcrystcats » January 17th, 2005, 11:17 pm

You are absolutely right that the "truth" about Pearl Harbor is only a theory. I admit I stretched it into a truth somewhat unfairly to strengthen my point.

But my point remains: there is very little in the way of facts or truths for us to go on when we attempt to predict what our government will or will not do to further its own aims.

You sincerely believe that the American government tried its best to capture Bin Laden and they could not do it because of the intricacies of the territory. We can agree to disagree about that.

I am still interested in knowing what effect (if any) the capture of Bin Laden and the disarming of Al Qaeda would have on the overall "war" on terror. Do you think it would have a major impact? A small impact? No impact at all? And why?

perezoso

Post by perezoso » January 17th, 2005, 11:27 pm

{FDR} manipulated our Navy so that they would be conveniently out of the way when the attack occurred.

In the 1940s it was unthinkable that the American government would actually allow an American port to be attacked, for any reason. Now, you are using the same logic and applying it to the "hunt" (or lack thereof) for Osama Bin Ladin. You are giving the government the benefit of your logic and implicit faith in the straightforwardness of their actions.
You are appearing more like a right-wing conspiracy nutcase with each post, Abcystrat.

Let's see the evidence for this assertion. There are WWII vets that would administer you a nice hard "correctio" for spouting off like this, fool .....

User avatar
Doreen Peri
Site Admin
Posts: 14393
Joined: July 10th, 2004, 3:30 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Doreen Peri » January 17th, 2005, 11:48 pm

Let's see the evidence for this assertion. There are WWII vets that would administer you a nice hard "correctio" for spouting off like this, fool ...
What's wrong with this post?

The words

FOOL and NUTCASE

You don't understand why your words are taken as insults?

Don't call people "fool" on this site.

Please.

What part of this don't you understand?

Give me your "clearly stated editorial rules" and we'll see how they fit here, alright?

You want rules now? State them.

Leave my guests alone or leave. Please.

perezoso

Post by perezoso » January 17th, 2005, 11:54 pm

Claiming that FDR was directly responsible for Pearl Harbor--and not offering any links, books, or evidence--that surely warrants the term nutcase.

User avatar
abcrystcats
Posts: 619
Joined: August 20th, 2004, 9:37 pm

Post by abcrystcats » January 18th, 2005, 12:04 am

Perez, for once you are absolutely right (sans "fool" and "nutcase"). If I was writing formally I SHOULD have offered proofs and not just the statement of the theory itself.

Please note, however, that I was actually using the theory as a support to my main statement. I assumed my audience would be familiar with the Pearl Harbor theory already, and I was right. My intent wasn't to defend the theory; it was to use it to support another point. A support doesn't need to be supported by more proofs.

I would like to see you follow a similar outline when YOU write:

STATEMENT ---

---proof
---proof
---proof

If you did, I could easily believe your articles were being considered for publication.

perezoso

Post by perezoso » January 18th, 2005, 12:13 am

I strongly doubt you have a degree or that you know anything about logic or stats. Or history.

Read my essay against theists--and you might note not only repeated uses of claims supported with evidence but also Bayes'
Theorem ( you know what that is? ).....

When you get yr degree, take the GREs, and tell me what Modus Ponens is ( or standard deviation for that matter) maybe we'll talk

Yr another pompous airheaded c**t

knip
Posts: 606
Joined: September 10th, 2004, 9:33 pm
Location: C-A-N-A-D-A

Post by knip » January 18th, 2005, 12:16 am

first, i don't think they use the term 'war' on terror anymore...pundits and the media might, but i don't think it is a slogan anymore...i think they realized the term hurt them in that it created an unrealistic expectation of an end to the conflict in the near term...that seems highly unlikely

it is important to understand that the 'campaign' (word tricks, i know) against terrorism (we'll use the acronym CAT froim here on in...:)) is directed against a different enemy than such terrorists as, the PLO. for instance...clinton clearly recognized this, although it is less certain if bushco does...one can generalize terrorists into two categories: political terrorists a la PLO, IRA, free aceh movement, etc..; and jihad terrorists a la al qaeda and numerous other groups...the main difference is that the political terrorists get their perceived authority from some wrong that was done against them that they have an inherent human right to correct...the jihad terrorists get their perceived authority from interpretation of religious text...i don't have my reference material handy, so i can't point towards exact names, but there was a guy around about 50 years ago, al mayqim, or something like that, who started the movement in egypt...previous jihadists saw the primary jihad as being the jihad for the minds of people, and that the jihad of war was subordinate to that...mayqim? reversed that and put the jihad firmly against all those who oppose the prophet mohammed...the gist was that heavy violence on unprecedented scales (even for terrorists) was divinely justified because it was for the greater good of the ultimate jihad...this also marked an acceptance of muslims being casulaties (which the political jihadists tried to avoid)...the reasoning was that if a good muslim was killed, he/she went to heaven anyway, but if a bad muslim was killed, he/she deserved it...so the war jihadists turned their attention towards whomever was against the prophet and the measuring stick was their actions...this is why the leaders in most arab countries are targets (especially saudi arabia and egypt), because they tend to act with pragmatic realism as opposed to in accordance with the texts...

much of the terrorism going on in egypt is of this bent, as is the al qaeda terrorism...bin laden is a direct disciple of the mayqim? character, through (i think) that blind cleric dude from egypt (i think there is an extra link between the blind guy and mayqim?)...of note, the bin laden - blind cleric link has not been frimly proven, but much of what is found in bin laden's speeches comes directly from mayqim's? writings and the relevant parts of the koran


so what does all this mean? it means that first we have to understand that, regardless of what the press says or how they interpret things, this is not a campaign against all terrorists...it is a campaign against the war jihadists...those jihadists who have so fervently bought into the war aginst all rhetoric that they pose a threat to anyone and everyone in their way...the media's representation of them simply wanting the west out of the middle east is rubbish...a simple way to present a complex problem...these folks don't even care about the palestinians all that much...they hate the jews because of their proximity in holy lands, but the palestinians aren't exactly the good-living muslim community the war jihadists want to see...

so the problem is that some folks have bought into the war jihad cause...again, the press commonly describes poverty and uneducation as root causes, but the movement gathered momentum primarily through the involvement of egyptian students and a certain high percentage of egyptian academia, so that's not the whole story...yes, poverty and uneducation contribute greatly to the creation of war jihadists in pakistan, indonesia, and yemen...but many come from sudan, somalia, syria, and saudi arabia, as well as some of the stans in ex-USSR...

the reason these folks turn towards war jihadism is that their governments are corrupt...look at the muslim countries where the leaders have promoted some level of traditional muslim lifestyle but have not had huge problems with mass exodus of jihadists...oman, UAE, bahrain, qatar...these are muslim countries with relatively little government corruption...in these places, although fundamentalists may not agree with their approaches (and they exist - i've walked through the neighbourhoods), they stomach them...the added element of huge government corruption does not add enough to get them to the critical mass of war jihadism

sunni and shi'ite splits also contribute, but that is a whole other story


bin laden is merely a guy who had the money, organizational skills, and vision to draw all these folks together into a single organization...yes, they run on sleeper cells and the like, but he has also drawn in other organziations or elements of them, such as splitting fundamentalists off the free aceh rebels...(this is why indonesia wants the americans out)...cutting off the head does not destroy the whole body, but it weakens its organizational abilties somewhat, which weakens them and allows those in the CAT to attack other vulnerabilities with greater ease...but bin laden isn't the only piece...they have to take out all the upper levels of command to truly have an impact...but before they can do any of this in earnest, they really have to develop sources of HUMINT (human intelligence)....you can imagine the amount of time it takes to establish HUMINT operators in such war jihad organizations...contrary to common belief, CIA HUMINT operators were cut back considerably during the peace dividend period of the 90s (clinton, but bush sr. started it)...intel on these guys is bad because the US let their HUMINT capabiltity atrophy, and also because bush jr. didn't really believe clinton during their handover that al qaeda/war jihad was the emerging enemy


so yes, bin laden must be taken out, but he alone won't do the trick...it requires taking out the upper levels, and better int is required to do that...unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) have thought they found some of these guys in the past, but the pictures were grainy (don't believe what you see in the movies) and they needed a secondary source of intel to follow up on ot - there are simply not enough resources to follow up on everything...so the bottom line is that it will take a while

even if they take out the leadership, that's not the end of it...they have to eliminate the corruption and cronyism that goes on in many of these countries....i think bushco only understands part of that...iraq is all about this, whether you agree with it or not...it is an attempt to get rid of corrupt leadership...but they will still need to reduce corruption in other countries, most notably indonesia...perhaps they made a mistake trying to fight a two-front war (al qaeda & iraq), but honestly, they weren't going to get anywhere with the al qaeda leadership until their HUMINT got better...so they turned their gaze to perhaps the easiest foe on the list, saddam

what's next? dunno...but i do know this is going to go on for a long, long time...maybe 100 years...huntington will use this to promote his 'clash of civilizations' theory, but i disagree...the war jihadists are only a small portion of the beautiful muslim culture...but i suspect syria might be next




so to answer your question, the capture of bin laden is really about the elimination of the upper command levels...what that will accomplish is a disorganization that will allow focusing on other areas before the head has a chance to grow back...it is only one Decisive Point of many in the CAT...but it is vitally important

sorry for the long convoluted rant...i just didn't feel like answering 100 follow-on questions, although that could still happen, i suppose (insert emoticon here)

User avatar
Anonymous-one
Posts: 375
Joined: August 16th, 2004, 11:20 pm
Location: Montreal , Quebec

Post by Anonymous-one » January 18th, 2005, 12:30 am

Good article on the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory.:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html
Last edited by Anonymous-one on January 18th, 2005, 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
abcrystcats
Posts: 619
Joined: August 20th, 2004, 9:37 pm

Post by abcrystcats » January 18th, 2005, 12:41 am

Thanks, Perez, and you're another.

You're right. I don't have a degree, but I know a pompous, airheaded c**t when I see one.

Hmmm, let's see ... were you EVER in this discussion at all, Perezoso? Or did you deliberately look up all my posts this evening to see exactly WHICH ones you had missed insulting?

I guess you scored a home run on this thread, Mr. P, because not only did you get to insult me, you got to see me AGREE with the basis of your insult. A big fat round of applause for the Big Man, Mr. Perez!

FYI, I have ploughed through many of your original writings. I am impressed with the depth and breadth of your learning, but NOT your writing style. When you do include proofs, they are usually references to references of references. You are fond of a kind of intellectual shorthand which makes your writing totally unintelligible to all but the most erudite of scholars -- and even they would turn away in disgust from your horrific style and lack of consideration for your audience.

You need an interpreter, Mr. Peter-ohso!. A good writer should NOT need an interpreter. If you only wrote with the clarity you use to INSULT your readers, you'd be a brilliant author of many well-read, well-published works.

But I am wasting my time. You will only write back to me that, of course, you are ALREADY published and you do not need to take advice from a peon like me. You will continue to wander in the morass of your underground internet website world ... hated, unknown except as a troll ...when, unlike me, you COULD be a published author of many brilliant works. Quit lying to yourself. Quit lying to the rest of us. You have the scholarship but your communication skills SUCK.

Get yourself a tutor, if you can. Work your way out of this. I admit that you are closer than any of the rest of us to an amazing career. Fix your writing and it will happen.

Knip, I saw your lengthy post. Thanks! Will reply shortly ...

perezoso

Post by perezoso » January 18th, 2005, 12:52 am

You don't know how to read argumentative prose. Or write it. And for simply spouting off about FDR and Pearl Harbor--without any evidence-- you would be flunked in my history course or my writing course.

And your attempts at a critique of my writing as are laughable as your usual lame scribblings. No examples, no references, nothing-- like that empty place between your, uh, ears.

User avatar
abcrystcats
Posts: 619
Joined: August 20th, 2004, 9:37 pm

Post by abcrystcats » January 18th, 2005, 1:25 am

Knip -- Thank you for your response.

Reading between the lines of all this I can see (correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe the war in Iraq is a necessary part of a very long struggle to eliminate terrorism and more importantly, the hatred and ignorance that inspired it.

Over the holiday I listened to the complete audiotape of Fareed Zakaria's "Future of Freedom." Zakaria believes that terrorism is the direct outcropping of a youth explosion in the Middle East. He believes it is analogous to our Sixties rebellion in the United States and elsewhere, and that the only cure for terrorism is to somehow reduce the rapid birthrates in the Middle East.

I think your theory may make more sense: corrupt and tyrannical governments = hatred = terrorism. The folks living in the UAE aren't out to get Americans or any other Western group. They are, themselves, living in an American-style world with a somewhat American-style government.

You appear to pooh-pooh poverty and oppression as root causes for terrorism, but then you admit that the wealthier and more liberal nations in the Middle East haven't generated any/many terrorist cells. I agree with you that what people need is opportunity, education, and a liberal government that allows them to pursue their options actively. Once those things are in place, then people will focus their energies more positively and Jihad-inspired terrorism will all but disappear.

The thing is, how do Americans create all these opportunities in a world already corrupted by war, hatred and oppression? You may doubt our ability to catch Osama, but I doubt our ability to inspire the creation of a liberal democracy in a nation torn by war (our personal war!) and the previous terrorism and destructive power of its own leader -- Saddam Hussein.

How do we get these people to set aside their ideas of Jihad and embrace liberty, freedom and opportunity instead? Someone thought a big war and the destruction of a dictatorship would be a great way to start. Instead, we seem to have only inflamed the fury of the jihadists and created more terrorism and hatred against us than there was before.

Maybe this is stupid and naive of me, but why does the West have to CONQUER every nation it sees? Could we have gone into Iraq with assistance and gifts and accomplished the same end, much more quickly? Could we have taken out Saddam more surgically, with less overall violence to the people of Iraq? We seem to have approached this war as if it were our own holy war against the terrorists who destroyed the WTC, years ago. We believed Saddam harbored the terrorists, and we have actually punished the whole NATION of Iraq for our mistaken belief. I realize that many of the terrorists in Iraq come from other nations, but at least an EQUAL number come from within her.

My initial question about Osama was somewhat naive. I suppose this post is naive, as well, but I cannot see how WAR can lead to peace, or how DEATH can lead to life.

What does Bush hope to accomplish in his neverending war on terror? How does he expect to bring enlightenment to the Middle East and destroy the concept of Jihad forever? If he keeps showing these people the sharp edge of our sword isn't he only going to inspire more rebellion and hatred?

I do not see how the actions in Iraq will lead to any good for the people of the world. Perhaps it is my limited vision. You mentioned 100 more years to bring the Muslim countries to a better understanding of world peace. Perhaps you are right and it will really take that long.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your whole post :-)

User avatar
abcrystcats
Posts: 619
Joined: August 20th, 2004, 9:37 pm

Post by abcrystcats » January 18th, 2005, 1:37 am

My dear Perezoso -- I am not IN your history or writing course. You are not at work. This is a website. I know I would be flunked in ANY course if I did not provide PROOF for any event that I assumed to be a fact. You are preaching to the choir. And if I were in your history or writing course, I would meet your requirements and I would get an A. Ease off.

If you are, indeed, a teacher, then you must be VERY schizophrenic. How can you teach the students of today's society and then come here and beat up on us -- the relative INTELLECTUALS of the current American world? Damn.

Remember, I used to live within 10 miles of where you're sitting now. It's a lot scarier in So Cal than it is in any place in Colorado. You must be nuts to be beat up on me and then go to work and teach your students -- whoever they are!

Post Reply

Return to “Culture, Politics, Philosophy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest