Understanding terrorism

[richlevy]

Urbane, you seem to be splitting up your posts. Is this one for each personality?

As for denial, you are the one who seems to be whipsawing back and forth between Al-Queda and Saddam. My point was that the war in Iraq was not part of the war on terror. You seem to agree with that point and criticize my opinion at the same time.

Want to fight tyrants? Let's make a list and throw in Myanmar, Congo, and at least a dozen more. We'll leave off North Korea and Iran, since they may actually have nukes and paradoxically cannot be invaded by us. It's sort of like the idea of only loaning money to people who don't need it. You can only invade countries which threaten you with nukes if they don't actually have them.

I love your sterotype of liberals. At the same time that you go into a harangue about the concept of everyone thinking every neo-con is stupid enough to believe the Saddam-9/11 connection, while that is what your post appeared to support, you of course paint liberals with a broad brush.

My personal preference is that instead of 30,000 soldiers in Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden and 160,000 in Iraq, we have 200,000 soldiers in Afgahnistan looking for Bin Laden. My way would probably result in getting the 'tyrant' who actually attacked us. That's hardly being 'soft' on tyrants.

I support and defend my Constitution. I hold my leaders accountable. I do not sit on my ass humming patriotic tunes and playing "don't ask, don't tell" with politics. A soldier does his duty by following orders. A citizen does his duty by questioning authority and insuring that Congress has the consent of the governed. You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about every tinpot foreign tyrant in the world. I worry about us raising one here, or setting the stage for one in the future.

If it were only your ass on the line, I'd love to let you dress up and go out there to shoot something. Unfortunately, there are a quarter of a million men and women who are expecting to be sent to the right place at the right time and with the right equipment and support. We let them down this time. They did not have to go to Iraq. There were no weapons pointed our way. We have changed their mission and they are doing the best that they can with where we have placed them.

Right now you can say it was worth it. I wish you were younger and had a classification where you actually got shot at, so you could come back and tell me if that is really true.

For some reason you have become infected with Heinlein syndrome. This malignent disease results in the idea that veterans are automatically better citizens than civilians.

Hear, hear, Rich! Right on! I am not a veteran, but as a soldier's daughter I spent age 13 -14 and again, age 16 - 17 glued to the TV every night when CBS Evening News would come on with its Vietnam war footage. It took 10 days back then for a letter from Vietnam to reach the US. My Dad wrote me every day he possibly could, so I'd know he'd been alive 10 days before. I'd scan the faces on the clips aired by CBS anxiously looking for my father's - was he dead? Wounded? And for what just cause? In what honorable fight?

I live in a military town, and certain businesses here hang large banners proclaiming, "WE SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!" Bullshit! These folks are just in the business of ripping off soldiers they know will be in Iraq in a few months and will have other things on their mind than to complain about being ripped off.

UG is the sort of sociopath who climbs out of the woodwork drooling bloodlust and passes it off as patriotism. Anyone who cares about this country will ask what the hell we are doing in Iraq? Anyone who wants to prevent further 9/11's will go after the man responsible, not the people who weren't. Anyone who honestly "supports our troops" will be horrified that they are being sent off to fight and die in a game of smoke and mirrors. The fiasco in Iraq is at best a display of criminal incompetance on the part of the leaders of this country and, at worst, evidence of an uncaring, self-serving desire to hold on to the reins of power and win elections, our soldiers and our people and our country be damned.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

The voice of unreason as usual, Marichiko.

WE who, white boy? I sit at The Wall in DC, trace my fingers on certain names etched in stone, never to hear that man's voice again, never to see his smile, and I am to take comfort in the thought that some street vendor in Saigon is selling wrist watches made in China?

I've walked the Wall more than once myself. I've stood in the little pine grove near the Three Bronze Grunts (the nurse statue wasn't up yet) and played "Battle of the Somme" on my pipes. After I was done playing, some of the patch veterans that frequent the Wall came up and told me how much they'd liked it. There was more than one pair of misty eyes there that afternoon.

I bet they'd thank you if you went and did likewise. From a raw-beginner start, it would likely take you about eight to twelve months of practice to get you where you'd be ready to do it. Like any musical instrument, it's less the days of doing it than it is the hours.

How dare you make so light of their sacrifices?

That you'd like me to make light of their sacrifice is just one more reason that that will never happen. And taking your political ideas for action -- dubious, very very dubious. William F. Buckley and L. Brent Bozell (speaking, as we soon will, of "in the family") seem to me far more trustworthy.

AS someone who was involved in military intelligence and covert ops, aren't you the slightest bit puzzled over what the hell we are doing in Iraq?

Not remotely puzzled: I can see what it is we're trying to do. We are trying to make Islamoterrorism extinct by eliminating its natural breeding grounds: Islamic non-democracies. There's nothing in particular wrong with eliminating the weakest non-democracy first, and that was Iraq -- interesting, was it not, to note how few felt like dying for Saddam's régime? And those few, well, they died. Good riddance: a lack of lackeys emasculates tyrants.

We who were in the military intelligence community tend to differentiate strongly our understandings of what routine intelligence gathering and covert operations really are -- considering covert ops to be Special Warfare and the bailiwick of the Special Forces, the SEALs, Delta, and perhaps a few less publicized outfits of get-in-and-whack-'ems. We SIGINT guys -- well, it's good duty, but I'd be the last to call it exciting to watch: it's guys under headphones staring at equipment. Perhaps the nearest civilian equivalent to SIGINT is radio astronomy -- you're using the electromagnetic spectrum to tease out information that isn't necessarily meant for you, and you don't reach out and twiddle with what you're getting the information from. Covert operations? Only in the very broadest sense of covert, and not as used within the community.

. . .if we were going to invade ANY country in retribution for 9/11, would it not be Saudi Arabia?

Or shouldn't we be treating Saudi as an ally? They've been wiping out al-Qaeda sympathizers to the tune of five thousand arrested or dead. And since we've been this active in the region, elections are happening in Saudi too. Who'd've expected that development? Would we have expected it without the Iraq campaign? The people who try to find failure in all this don't strike me as honest, not at all. The House of Saud is walking a tightrope between their biggest markets on one side and the more idiotic sort of al-Wahabis on the other, but on balance they come down on our side because they know they'd be the poorer if they bowed to al-Wahab -- about as big a clench-butt in the Islamic world as the most tightassed fundie televangelists you can think of.

Is not Bin Laden a member of the House of Saud?

He is not. The bin Laden family is Yemeni in origin, and made the family fortune in construction -- in Saudi, where the money was. The bin Laden family don't like Osama very much at all, either. They treat him like a remittance man. This suggests they don't find him anything approaching reasonable themselves. Osama's what happens when you've got religious bigotry combined with tens of millions of dollars.

Good liberals ought to fight against religious bigots, shouldn't they? If they're actually good, I mean?

Its as if after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we decided to declare war on New Zealand. What the hell? Close enough!

This is the sort of raving that tells us you're wrapped considerably too tight, and that you think this makes your point demonstrates your want of wisdom.

You cannot back up your convictions.

Heh heh. Sez you; and I shall be delighted to prove you mistaken, and at length. Say, for the next forty years, by which time I'll be pushing ninety and may be bored with it.

. . .you tell us Vietnam was a worthy sacrifice of American lives. . .

Of course it was. Fights against tyrannies (and was North Vietnam anything but?) are worthy fights by definition. Check Augustine of Hippo on the topic. What was wrong with Vietnam was the strategy was in effect designed to lose, and the war was lost not in the hills of Vietnam but in the halls of Congress, to our shame. That the Saigon government was not exactly a model of either enlightenment or efficiency in no way invalidates the battle against Hanoi, as a quarter million Vietnamese refugees and boat people will happily and rightly tell you. And what's become of the Communist régime in Vietnam? Its communism has decayed, and will fairly soon be replaced by something more in accord with human nature, bit by quiet bit.

Granted, Saddam was a tyrant, but the fucking world is chock full of tyrants! The US neither can nor should go out to war against all of them.

As a strong believer in the goodness of human freedom, I find the first sentence flatly disproves the second. You see, I want a good world. That means a world with no tyrannies, nor tyranny's excesses. "All of them"? Eh, one at a time will suffice. The tender feelings of tyrants and their lackeys should receive no consideration beyond the mercy of a bullet through the skull, rather than say burning at the stake or just plain impalement, which doesn't consume firewood and if done Wallachian style, takes longer too. Blunted point, greased shaft. Considering where they stick it in, embarrassing too, though death per anum may well suit the irredeemably assholic.

The proper function of the military in a DEMOCRACY is to defend the country's own borders.

This is mistaken too. The proper function of a democracy's military is to defend that democracy's INTERESTS. These do not stop at the borders.

I'm waiting, Mr. Democracy, and why the hell don't you put your body where your mouth is and go fight some Iraqi "insurgents," since you are so god damn gung ho about killing prople? Go kill 'em already, why are you wasting your time here?

Well! The shriller you get, the more the madwoman you sound. You're saying "Mr. Democracy" as if it were a bad thing. I believe I've made it clear at least twice that I am now over military age, and yet have nine years more military service than you do. I've a wife with twenty and a retirement. You do not have any standing to screech about this; I've told you you're a lightweight, and that's why. What I'm doing here is one of two things: either converting you from your current error (I'd go so far as to call it a sin -- one I don't commit.) or leaving you as the sole and the only adherent to it: isolated in your error and your wrongfulness, while all the Cellar points at you and laughs.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

My point was that the war in Iraq was not part of the war on terror. You seem to agree with that point and criticize my opinion at the same time.

I do not agree with that point at all. They are one and the same. Those who want the war lost insist they are somehow separate, but you should know my views on that by now. From now on, please take it as read that I regard the Iraq campaign as an integral part of the War on Terror, part of that denial of breeding grounds I've so often mentioned.

The chappie who disses Heinlein does not understand what it takes to keep a Republic on the libertarian path -- hardly the path of wisdom, is it now?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

. . .evidence of an uncaring, self-serving desire to hold on to the reins of power and win elections, our soldiers and our people and our country be damned.

As neatly phrased an indictment of the Democratic Party's misbehavior and misplaced motivations as I've seen in months. I'd like to borrow it.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

As neatly phrased an indictment of the Democratic Party's misbehavior and misplaced motivations as I've seen in months. I'd like to borrow it.

Feel, free, UG. Borrow away. Your response to my points about Vietnam was that you got to go play your bagpipes at The Wall. That's nice. So, all those men died so you could go get your ego gratified at their national memorial? And what makes you think I know nothing of music and the time and dedication it takes to play music well? But that's a not the issue, now is it?

In response to my question of why are we not going after Bin Laden you respond that "There's nothing in particular wrong with eliminating the weakest non-democracy first, and that was Iraq." You have made my point for me. Bush took the easy way out and allowed the real culprit to remain at large.

Frankly, if the people of any given nation don't have the desire or will to rid themselves of dictators and tyrants, why should we spill our blood on their behalf? Let them reap their just reward as a nation and as a people. They'll figure it out - or not.

You may finally become bored at 90, but I have a short little span of attention and I am bored now, so I'll respond to you no further. I have better things to do with my time

[Undertoad]

One of tw's central points is that much Islamic terror is no longer from al-Qaeda but something the administration calls al-Qaeda. Huh:

Saudis warned UK weeks ahead of bombings

Saudi Arabia officially warned Britain of an imminent terrorist attack on London just weeks ahead of the 7 July bombings after calls from one of al-Qaeda's most wanted operatives were traced to an active cell in the United Kingdom.

Senior Saudi security sources have confirmed they are investigating whether calls from Kareem al-Majati, last year named as one of al-Qaeda's chiefs in the Gulf kingdom, were made directly to the British ringleader of the 7 July bomb plotters.

One senior Saudi security official told The Observer that calls to Britain intercepted from a mobile phone belonging to Majati earlier this year revealed that an active terror group was at work in the UK and planning an attack.

He also said that calls from Majati's lieutenant and al-Qaeda's logistics expert, Younes al-Hayari, who was killed in a separate shoot-out just four days before the 7 July bombings, have also been traced to Britain.

The Saudi official said: 'It was clear to us that there was a terror group planning an attack in the UK. We passed all this information on to both MI5 and MI6 at the time. We are now investigating whether these calls were directly to the London bombers. It is our conclusion that either these were linked or that a completely different terror network is still at large in Britain.'

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

One of tw's central points is that much Islamic terror is no longer from al-Qaeda but something the administration calls al-Qaeda.

These articles and accusations have continued every week since 7 July. Your assumption is that those phone called were to Al Qaeda operatives in Saudia Arabia - not to some Al Qadea 'look alikes' better called Muslim Brotherhood. Show me the trail to bin Laden?

You are assuming that every terrorist must be Al Qaeda. That is the administration propaganda. Time after time, the many terrorist attacks over the past few years have no connection to Bin Laden. Even Zarqawi's relationship to bin Laden is best called fictional; only exists in the principles of Muslim Brotherhood.

Part of the problem with this big centralized Islamic conspiracy under the headline of Al Qaeda: Al Qaeda does not even exist according to Musharraf of Pakistan. It has long since disbanded as effective terrrorist and guerilla insurgents routinely do.

For Al Qaeda to exist according to administration and Rush Limbaugh propaganda, then Al Qaeda also attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. But then these are the same people who blamed Saddam for 11 September. There is this wee little thing called credibility.

Post back when you have credibile facts - not just another accusation from one source that claims it was Al Qaeda. A phone call was made to Saudia Arabia. Therefore it must be Al Qaeda!!!!!

"Bank was just robbed in the next town. I read a report that says it was Al Qaeda. Oh god. Dear me. They're coming to get me." Call me when real facts exist. Posted here is just another in a long list of claims all citing Al Qaeda - from unnamed government sources... Karl Rove.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Of course it was. Fights against tyrannies (and was North Vietnam anything but?) are worthy fights by definition. Check Augustine of Hippo on the topic. What was wrong with Vietnam was the strategy was in effect designed to lose, and the war was lost not in the hills of Vietnam but in the halls of Congress, to our shame. That the Saigon government was not exactly a model of either enlightenment or efficiency in no way invalidates the battle against Hanoi, as a quarter million Vietnamese refugees and boat people will happily and rightly tell you. And what's become of the Communist régime in Vietnam? Its communism has decayed, and will fairly soon be replaced by something more in accord with human nature, bit by quiet bit.

So over 50,000 dead, a war lost, and the former enemy is reforming itself without our military intervention, but through trade.

Sounds like an argument against war to me.

It's nice that you respect them, it's nice that you play the pipes for them, but the best result for them would not to be there in first place. I personally would like to see less walls and monuments and more living monuments with their friends and families.

War is sometimes necessary, but you have set the bar abysmally low.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Fights against tyrannies (and was North Vietnam anything but?) are worthy fights by definition. Check Augustine of Hippo on the topic. What was wrong with Vietnam was the strategy was in effect designed to lose, and the war was lost not in the hills of Vietnam but in the halls of Congress, to our shame. That the Saigon government was not exactly a model of either enlightenment or efficiency in no way invalidates the battle against Hanoi, as a quarter million Vietnamese refugees and boat people will happily and rightly tell you.

Obviously, if Hanoi and Vietnam was a hell hole, then those boat people are still coming in the millions. Just the other side of the fact that Rush Limbaugh and UG would forget to mention. Tyranny was not N Vietnam. One is suppose to learn history instead of rewriting it. Tyranny was the S Vietnamese government and its army.

But then we cite specific examples. Who asked to be made a protectorate of the US? Ho Chi Minh. Whose Declaration of Independence is an example copy of the US Declaration of Independence? Vietnam's.

Who was the enemy of the poeple? Who really were the freedom figthers that UG promotes? Unfortunately, the US government listened to militarists who had enlisted man intelligence - such as Gen William Westmoreland. The US lost that war because the US military commanders violated basic military principles and doctrine taught even in 500 BC. To his grave, Westmoreland refuse to admit HE was the problem - just like that 'dumb and directed' enlisted man who cannot learn on his own. An informed military man would have known that war was lost by the generals (and a just as myopic president) who were more enthrilled with their military hardware than in the purpose of war and the lessons of history.

Officers are suppose to first understand basic concepts such as what and why. The Vietnam war is a classic example of what happens when military leaders fail to define a strategic objective - and then lie to coverup their illegal war. This treachory at the highest levels of military and government officials is well documented in history. UG has demonstrated that his knowledge is more based in his militaristic emotions and not in first learning the lessons of history. UG has no idea why the Vietnam war was well understood as lost in the mid 1960s - by the officers on the ground. UG is encouraged to read what some of the toughest Marines in Vietnam learned that early on - David Halbersham's "Making of a Quagmire". Must reading for any enlisted man who intends to have an officer's education.

So just like in the "Misson Accomplished" war, even the intelligence was subverted to serve the lying leadership. According to military intelligence, we had killed everyone in Vietnam three times. But UG blames Congress. Its called rewriting history.

[lookout123]

listened to militarists who had enlisted man intelligence

enlisted man who intends to have an officer's education.

tw, do you actually believe that officers are more intelligent than the enlisted?

Ah hem. Must say that TW is just a bit off in his assumptions there. My Dad was an enlisted man who could read Ceasar's Commentaries in the original Latin. One of his tours in "Nam was in MACV under Westmoreland. My Dad didn't think much of the man. He preferred McArthur. My Dad had a book case filled with volumes on military history and strategy and had read them all. You were saying about ignorant enlisted men?

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

tw, do you actually believe that officers are more intelligent than the enlisted?

You want to make proof by specific examples. Overall, enlisted men don't have the curiosity to be officers. That does not say all enlisted men are dumb or do not have officer education. Indeed, even Bill Gates, Michael Dell, and Peter Jennings would only be enlisted men. But yes, the typical enlisted man has the education of a technician. He knows very well how to work with what he has. Typically has no interest in knowing the bigger picture - the strategic objective. Officers are supposed to understand that bigger picture.

In Vietnam, the officer named Westmoreland did not have sufficient intelligence or curiosity to be commanding general material. Would the enlisted man even know? Things that every officer was supposed to know were not even provided to enlisted man. The enlisted man only knew the symptoms -
"And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, next stop is Vietnam
And it's five, six, seven, open up the Pearly Gates.
Well, there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopie we're all gonna die. "

They knew the top generals were wrong; were lying. The music said so. Any yet if we told enlisted men why, well, eyes would only glaze over. You tell me. How many enlisted men read Sze Tzu's 'Art of War' - and why not? Required reading for anyone in the military - with sufficient knowledge of the job. Anyone trained even in those basic concepts knew we were in trouble when the 3rd ID had no orders for the peace. Officers may have understood. We know quite accurately that the commanding officer for the 101st Airborne in Mosul understood the problem quite accurately - and all but said we have a leadership problem. As an officer, he saw what enlisted men would not even ask. For the most part, enlisted men did not have sufficient education and knowledge to appreciate how bad things would become in Iraq.

Yes there can be enlisted men with officer's education. Exceptions exist. But how many enlisted men were asking why the dimensions of those aluminum tubes were exact dimensions for a Medusa rocket. Such curiosity is lost on most enlisted men. An enlisted man need only be dumb and well directed. Any additional intelligence is a benefit - but not required - when they will not be doing officer work - such as understanding the big picture - the strategic objective.

[lookout123]

An enlisted man need only be dumb and well directed. Any additional intelligence is a benefit - but not required - since they will not be doing officer work.

only a true fool would believe intelligence can be estimated based upon a rank.

are you one of those elitists that believes a degree is a direct reflection of one's intelligence? have you ever met an ignorant individual with a degree? more than one? have you ever met a truly intelligent individual without a degree? more than one?

a degree is evidence of a formal education, not proof of intelligence. a formal education does not necessarily instill the ability to analyze, interpret, and formulate a plan of action. lack of formal education does not exclude the ability to do the same.

lack of a commission means a lack of curiosity? an ignorance of one's surroundings?

an enlisted man only needs to be dumb enough to follow directions? what military service have you been around?

in all my time and experiences in the military i have only met 1 officer who displayed such misplaced, elitist contempt for the enlisted. i have however found similar elitist attitudes in the academic world, usually in people that would never be able to hold their own outside the walls of academia.

[tw]

Originally Posted by marichiko

My Dad had a book case filled with volumes on military history and strategy and had read them all. You were saying about ignorant enlisted men?

So you are claiming your dad is typical of all enlisted men? I don't think so. That would be why he was in HQ.

I find it very disconcerting that anyone would cite one exception as proof of a trend. if true, then video games have caused massive increase in murders, car thefts, and overall mayhem. After all, a single example in the local gossip news proved it to be true. An exception does not prove anything other than an exception exists.

You have not yet represented by example what I posted IF you did not example every one of 1 million enlisted men - and show me the volumes of history and strategy that each has read. Most enlisted men would not learn why, for example, the smoking gun is essential to justify war. Technicians need not understand the bigger picture.

Again, be very careful with what I posted verses what you have just read. I did not say all technicians remain that ill informed. I said - and read it carefully "Technicians need not understand the bigger picture". Some might even regard an understanding of that bigger picture determental to their own health and safety.

Lookout123's posts concerning this are nothing more than cheap shots. He perverts what I posted. I did not say all enlisted men are dumb. So Lookout123 does a Rush Limbaugh trick. He phrases a challenge to pervert what I said. Its classic propaganda. He says things I did not say. Don't fall for how he intentionally misrepresents what I had posted. He would even pervert what I posted into "every officer is always more intelligent than every enlisted man". Obviously I did not say that. And yet that is what Lookout123 wants you to believe.