|
Post by Rob G on Jan 18, 2005 9:32:13 GMT -5
It appears the Catholic bishop has been freed. No ransom paid they say, just released. You figure either he was released because (1)Catholic church did not endorse war (2)They did not want this negative press (3)The Vatican paid or put pressure down hardcore
|
|
|
Post by Rob G on Jan 18, 2005 9:32:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Jan 18, 2005 9:47:51 GMT -5
I've seen this happen before - they kidnap anyone foreign then they research to decide if the kidnapping was legit in their warped viewpoint.
I disagree strongly, moreso now that I read Imperial Hubris completely, that there is a desire to make the case of Islam v. Christianity. The case is for Islam, but not against other religions wholesale. Their enemy is the US and they view us as half-heathen, Zionist-following, evangelical Christians. The Pope is none of these things. The Pope even sits with other religious leaders on a regular basis in his direct efforts to guide peace among people. Back to the point, if their war was against Christains as an entity, they would have directed efforts at the Vatican and the Church of England. Instead the efforts went against the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon - very telling targets in light of the many they could have pursued with that means.
|
|
|
Post by Rob G on Jan 18, 2005 22:51:06 GMT -5
Let me make my thought clear.
The evil men want to create the appearance of a Muslum vs Infidel war so that all muslums unite under THEIR cause. I feel even stronger then you that this is true.
The Pope is cool
|
|
|
Post by larry g on Jan 19, 2005 15:31:59 GMT -5
the funny thing is islam is much more like judism then christianity. christianity for all its faults is based on love and forgivness where both islam and judism is base on obidience and vengence. jews do have a better sence of humor though.
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Jan 19, 2005 17:36:03 GMT -5
Yes, Christianity was the ones to get beyond worldly existance entirely, whereas Old Testament and Koran focus still on wordly gains as indicative of rewards from God.
Here's my Imerial Hubris post, part I: This book outlines what I wanted to know mostly; why is there any appeal for these guys and how can it make sense in the least. It does a good job at that and depicting errors made in reacting and steps he would take going forward. He is not a touchy-feely author and does not sympathize in the least, his ultimate conclusions are brutal.
Interesting is his insistance that this is insurgency of Islam, not terror. He insists they have tangible, real-world goals pursued by war. He differentiates bombers from terrorists in that they have a mindset and an agenda that we could outline. In short, we could do things that would prevent the bombers. Because they are not suicidal, they believe they are heroic resistance fighters.
He depicts jihad in Islamic terms as an center tenet of the religion, OK we knew that. But he describes it as two-fold, offensive and defensive. Offensive to expand territory and the reach of Islam. Defensive to defend the motherland from Crusading infidels. Ayatollah was the offensive jihadist and was unsuccessful and we are under absolutely no threat from that. Currently there is a very popular defensive jihad. Dropped against this is the history of the Muslims getting run over for every year since the Moors conquered Spain. The only victory waged in that time was driving out the Soviets in Afghanistan. There then was a fear of atheistic communists trying to literally destroy their religion and thus began a movement for Muslims to fight abroad to defend their religion in a defensive jihad. This is also how they view Iraq, Chechyna, Kashmir, some people in China, and Pakistan’s conflict with India.
Tucked neatly into this is a desire for a "true" Islamic nation, of which Osama listed Taliban as the only one. Reference elite dictators in other nations as not "Islamic enough" whatever that means. So basically, Afghanistan was a center for this broadly perceived home to the one"true" Islamic nation that we invaded. What's good for Jews they say should be good for Muslims.
Ayatollah Khomeni tried making the case for Muslims v. the infidels (offensive jihad) and that never gained mass appeal and was never exported to places like Morocco and Malaysia. That’s why I thought their attack of a local guy was misguided, because although not Muslim, he did not further their goals of striking the US and our allies on the ground. They're not out for our religion, they're attacking our political work/infrastructure. Like the attacks on US appointed police chiefs and voter registration people, strikes designed to attack not religions, but allies of the Crusaders/occupiers. The defensive jihad attracks people from other nations to back each other as Mulims against their oppressors.
A very englightening point was that Muslims make no distinction between religion and government. They view law as from Allah and that leaders are evoking his word. Fine for their world, but they also view statements made by other religious leaders as indicative of the governments of those nations. They listen to Faldwell and Swagger opine about the glory of Israel and don’t hear innane pratter devoid of political relevance, they hear insights into the US government. (My insight is that there is also a limited access to information without a freedom of press or expression and overabundace of misinformed clerics preaching about things they don’t have real info about.) Any external efforts to warp laws in the area against the words of the Koran are going to get fatwas and opposition on massive fronts for this logic. This is also why they hate their oppressive regimes. Also means the case for democracy (in our conception of it) is far harder to achieve that I once believed it could be.
He outlines basically a few entities at play in this mindset: Muslim populace, their dictatorial and ruthlessly oppressive governments, and the US that exploits them for oil. Subordinate to this is Israel/Zionists. The primary focus is not Isreal or Jews, the primary focus is the USA and our actions. Reaons including; support Isreal, support oppressive governments, exploit region for cheap oil, support India, Russia, and China killing Muslim minorities, occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, soldiers in bases throughout the Middle East. The targets selected reflect this; American financial and military interests and allies.
Osama Bin Laden declared war on the USA in 1996. That is almost a decade ago. He stated publically, outspokenly, and on television that since our way of life includes a democracy, the actions of our government are the will of our people, so we are all valid targets of retributive strikes. Clearly he has no concept of democracy at work (again, blame bad media/press/education in area says I). He speaks against the US and warns other nations to remain out of what he depicts as a conflict between US and Islam. The CIA analyst author indicated this meant that they could pursue more attacks in Europe but don’t because they want to not incite that region to enlist wholesale against their efforts. Osama lists the points over and over in his televised appearances the six reasons for their jihad. These would not be popular and gaining support in the region if they were unfounded. His patricular form of resistance is not what we would do, but that depressed region apparently akins poetic death with life thereafter and goes into it with a determined mindset if they believe the hype. The hype: US backs Zionists Israel, and Israel wants to expand its borders into a greater Israel including parts of Egpyt and Jordan. Attacking Iraq was viewed by some as a step in this direction, to say nothing of the attacks within Palestine, which are viewed as allowed by American money and machinery and political advice. In the war on terror, GW reached out to other nations, viewing his enemy as a gang of thugs all nations should eradicate. This meant allying with Pakistan, Russia, China, and India among others. These people were fighting miliants in Kashmir, Chechnya and within China, which allows Osama to claim we’re helping others to oppress Mulims worldwide. The facts are irrelevant, the perceptions are the point. Then there is the military presence of the US in the Middle East and the OPEC negotiations with the regimes, both helping to keep average people there poorer than they might otherwise be, a real hard-hitting economic and political message that resonates well within the region. There have been attacks within Saudi Arabia on foreigners and government complexes. Not only because they are not Islamic enough, but also because they are viewed as oppressive and the very bone of contention for the people living there. Osama serves as like an investor in localized efforts. Like entrepreneurs submitting prospectus to investors, Osama sits back and funds whatever he views as worthy. Removing a person like him does not remove the people plotting and the fundraising on-going for the resistance efforts.
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Jan 19, 2005 17:36:19 GMT -5
Part II
The CIA analyst author also distinguishes al Quaeda as mostly a military training facility in the conventional sense, with a focus on urban warfare. Within this there is a small, elite, terrorist training function, but the vast majority of the thousands were merely trained to fight against occupying forces with conventional weaponry. There are thousands of these people in numerous countries. Apparently our efforts in Afghanistan were lackluster to say the least. This author blamed concensus building for allowing the time for the people to dispurse. His depiction of the military efforts are scathing, claiming we have not won a conflict since 1991. He claims our definitions of victory are too limited and defined by short, sweet successes. He blames officials with wishing to limit American losses. This he views as cowardice and means that the true enemies disperse to their various rural homes for a while to return to the battle later, after we have already claimed victory. The Taliban, for instance, never were urban folk and their loss of the main cities in Afghanistan was actually beneficial as hey rid themselves of the burdan of stewardship for these populated areas. He strongly indicates Taliban fighters will return over and over. He views our prisoners in Cuba as becoming a better fed and healthier force that will be returned to the hands of our enemy. He doesn’t explicitly say we should just kill these dudes, but he does say that we should have the courage to be brutal and unrelenting in pursuing our enemies until they are all dead or worse. He views them as currently biding their time and striking at their wishes, not relenting to our pressure. He blames this entirely on adminstration views and handling of the conflicts. He starts with military commanders and chiefs, includes top level intelligence people, and include DC elites in this. Basically, he blames people for not providing correct information, not pursuing the best course of action, and fearing perception rather than accepting the reality of war. A war we have actually been in for years against Islam. Or more accurately, vice versa. He espouses a seal the borders and clean the interiors course of action that he says we did not take for the fear of losing American lives in difficult ot defend areas. Included in this is his scathing report of top officials leaking secret info, including in 1998 a DC paper reporting to the world that we had bugged Osama’s personal cell phone – what a way to ruin whatever strides we had made in the intelligence arena than to publically annouce them!
He portrays our effort as flawed in viewing them as terrorists, since they are basically a multinational massive populace with an agenda that is a tenable one – at least as tenable as most nation’s. Viewing them as terrorists is flawed operationally because we have pursued manhunts for individuals, led by the FBI. Dude totally shits on the FBI and everything they have done. He notes that they have horrible info handling measures going in (his input to them) and out of the organization (his requests for info from them). He wants a more cloak and dagger CIA led mission to find hideouts and a total annihilation of the strongest enemies. Also he advises us to get out of Israel for one and distance from undemocratic regimes of Middle East and Russia and China as means of taking out motives to attack US interests. But he mostly focusese on what he knows: the intelligence community in the Middle East, where he damns the involvement of the FBI over and over. Makes sense, since they are a policing outfit suited to US laws, not suited to international wars.
To summize: Inquiry going in was the motive, to adderss why the War of Terror is happening on a grand scale. There is a massive appeal for defense of Islamic lands and Islamic peoples, centered from Afghanistan from the example of the expulsion of the Soviets - some even the same fighters from that conflict US decision-makers act as if misinformed on the issue and pursue search for legal seizures and prosecutions instead of under cover exterminations of known enemy populations. The situation appears to continue like this so long as the people in the area perceive the US as they do and so long as the US maintains a status quo.
Hope I did dude justice, he wrote a very intelligent book. I appreciated it greatly, for it broadened my knowledge on the region. And not in a cultural appreciation, just a simple fact-finding answer to “why” and a little towards the ideas of “where from here then”. I highly recommend it, though be forewarned some sentences require reading a couple times over, it's dense material.
My conclusions from this: yeah, fuck Israel. Cut them off. yeah, fuck Chechnya, Kashmir, anywhere that I will never care about visiting, trading with, or ever knowing about in the first place. Let people fight their own battles. Cut everyone off. yeah, fuck the militants, let's execute them when we find them and not be taking prisoners. That's stupid, this is war with people accepting to death. Give them what they want. yeah, heads should roll for massive, widespread failures of intelligence and army officials and DC decision-makers. They are all to blame in part for the safety failures of our nation. yeah, fuck Iraq, let them have their Civil War and let's move on to watching MTV again. yeah, fuck the Taliban, I don't care what shithole they get to call their own.
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Jan 23, 2005 0:29:29 GMT -5
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweekTHE SALVADOR OPTION "NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal." Read through the perspective of that book, this story strikes me for two reasons: 1) SURE, we should be doing this. It's war, these people are trying to kill us and innocents, let's not be too cute about preventing them from achieving those ends. 2) How the fuck does a debate about this ever become public knowledge? Unacceptable on numerous levels and heads should roll every time something like this appears in the press. Why don't they? Even if we decide not to, we get accused of being inhumane. If we do this, the enemies get to know in advance. Lose-fucking-lose.
|
|
|
Post by Rob G on Jan 23, 2005 1:26:28 GMT -5
Fascinating
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Jan 24, 2005 11:08:40 GMT -5
story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=5&u=/latimests/20050124/ts_latimes/mccainplansinquiryintopentagonspyunit"McCain, responding to a report in Sunday's Washington Post, told CBS' "Face the Nation" that he would raise the question at hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He is a member of the panel. The Post, citing Pentagon documents and interviews with participants, reported that Rumsfeld had created a unit called the Strategic Support Branch to end "near total dependence" on the CIA for human intelligence. The unit, which has been operating for two years, deploys teams of case officers, linguists, interrogators and technical specialists with special operations forces, the Post said. The Pentagon contended the defense intelligence missions were subject to fewer legal constraints, the newspaper said. Defense Department spokesman Lawrence DiRita on Sunday said there was "no unit that is directly reportable to the secretary of Defense for clandestine operations as is described in the Washington Post article." What is funny is that last night when I did a Yahoo search for Strategic Support Branch I found it alright. As a branch of the DVA (Veterans). I would like to believe someone did not fabricate a story based on this veterans group that surely holds no consequence. Anyhow, again this mostly makes me mad that information such as this could ever be released. Then it makes me want them to not create more intelligence groups, but to either revise the systems in place or else start from scratch and disband the existing systems if they are not going to be used going forward. Too much already.
|
|
|
Post by Rob G on Jan 25, 2005 5:07:53 GMT -5
You know, In any civilization its tough with those in power. For who makes sure the ones in power are not doing bad things.
Answer: Sen Mccain
This guy is great. If he sees something suspicious he jumps right on that shit and tries to expose it. I dont knwo if there is anything bad going on with this "Spy Unit" but i rest assured that Mccain will figure it and out and make sure everything is OK.
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Jan 27, 2005 22:28:38 GMT -5
There is one other political figure I would like to personally thank for his contributions to American society: NYS Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. The SEC drags its feet in monitoring the stock market and in steps this guy with his meager staff to take to task US corporations and business practices ongoing on Wall Street and elsewhere. I would vote for this man as supreme dictator, vested with absolute power over everything. "Democracy is the worst form of government out there, except for those other ones..."
|
|
|
Post by larry g on Jan 29, 2005 23:32:52 GMT -5
well once again the hipocracy of the conservative movement comes out. the family of the late strom thurman who was the republicans highest elected afficial for many years and thier all around standard bearer, has confirmed that a black woman in her 60s is actually stroms illegitamit daughter. he had her when he was 25 years old and the young mother was a 15 year old black maid that worked for him. strom ran for president on the anti civil rights party in the 1940s.
thtas what i love about the conservatives they talk the talk but when it comes to thier lives its ok. thier all bullshit
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Jan 29, 2005 23:55:14 GMT -5
www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/15/thurmond..paternity/index.htmlArticle is dated 12/16/2003, a confirmation of something known unofficially for years. "the republicans highest elected afficial for many years and thier all around standard bearer" There is another man that died recently that held a higher post and is actually held in far greater esteem than this dude. Ronald Reagan. I'm not so sure this guy is Mr. Republican really, he used to be a Democrat (ran FOR segregation as one) for one thing and was like 8,000 years old back in the 70s. I don't know why I posted really. I think this guy is a piece of political garbage and should be rolled off a cliff instead of buried. I just think this is something that is not new and did not agree that he was Mr. Republican party (he's been dead since June 2003, but an old man since before any of us were born). Here's a picture of the crotchy old fuck:
|
|
|
Post by abisai on Feb 3, 2005 12:15:18 GMT -5
"And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you." - GWB NO Say it ain't so. Can we at least try to not sound like we are out to conquer the entirety of the Middle East? Even if they want to, don't go out and say it. We can't for a long time anyway, with troops extended already. In other news, according to time magazine, Russia has MORE spies under cover in active covert operations in the USA than during the Cold War, thanks to lax immigration policies following fall of USSR. Theories include they research American policies for the international arena and they research technology dubbed dual-use in that it has business uses as well as military uses.
|
|