Understanding terrorism

[Trilby]

Hypergraphia. It's not just for tw anymore.

[mrnoodle]

but this is a good thing. there is now a countervailing wind, and we can be buffetted by gusts from both sides.

I'm sure they're reading each other's posts, but I wonder if anyone else is.

No offense to either of you. You're just really....voluminous. My old newspaper editor would be having fits.

[Mr.Anon.E.Mouse]

I can't say I understand terrorism any more than I did before.

[lookout123]

well, as long as you understand that enlisted people are stupid, then all is well.

[Mr.Anon.E.Mouse]

Originally Posted by lookout123

well, as long as you understand that enlisted people are stupid, then all is well.

HAHAHAHAHA!

[richlevy]

I'm trying to figure out what a right-wing military junta in Burma has to do with communists.

They do have an agreement with China, but that might have more to do with our relationship with China than losing Vietnam.

Originally Posted by lookout123

well, as long as you understand that enlisted people are stupid, then all is well.

Well, just hold this thought, ya dumb NCO!

BTW, how did 2nd LTs survive in Vietnam? They first turned to their Sgt and ask, "How do we do this". The sign of an intelligent officer.

Originally Posted by richlevy

I'm trying to figure out what a right-wing military junta in Burma has to do with communists.

They do have an agreement with China, but that might have more to do with our relationship with China than losing Vietnam.

Well, my Dad fought in Burma during WWII. Probably he bungled something since he wasn't an officer and that explains it all!

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And this is known; I addressed that in my previous post. It is known that [Ho Chi Minh] he was disappointed in this, and that he turned instead to Red China and the Soviet Union, both of whom were hardly unwilling to spread Communism, and with a religious fervor about it, to yet another region undeserving of such monstrousness.

Well again Urbane Guerrilla demonstrates fictional knowledge of history. Ho Chi Minh asked to become a protectorate of the US because Ho Chi Minh feared ..... Red China. Well documented in US government analysis but not found in "The World According to Urbane Guerrilla". Same documents that the US government feared Americans would read.

Those documents were widely published and read by Americans who learn from history rather than rewrite history. Urbane Guerrilla would even claim that Saddam was participatory in attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. He is again doing as the George Jr administration would do; rewrite history when convenient. Maybe Urbane Guerrilla will also declare "Mission Accomplished"?

Interesting how history will be rewritten to justify the invasion of Iran. Let's consult an expert. Urbane Guerrilla: what is the historical justification for an invasion of Iran? Legal precedent found in a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? Or is being defined as an axis of evil is sufficient? Maybe their election was rigged. Would that justify an invasion to rescue democracy in Iran? Maybe we could arrange a Gulf of Tonkin in the Persian Gulf? So many good myths from Vietnam could justify the invasion of Iran.

Ho Chi Minh asked to become a protectorate of the US in five letters to Truman because he feared Red China. Urbane Guerrilla tells us that Ho Chi Minh went to Red China for help. From what? Red China?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Urbane Guerrilla would even claim that Saddam was participatory in attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Nope.

Remarkable how many Americans think some other Americans believe that, and will insist to the rest of us that somebody else, somewhere on the continent, believes that. However, actually finding such people is damned hard -- I certainly don't know any.

Let's see, what did North Vietnam get from Communist-bloc sources? Every rifle they fired at us once they'd run out the supply of catch-as-catch-can WW2 surplus, every cartridge also fired from these SKS and AK rifles, and the PPSh submachineguns and their cartridge, which also means the Tokarev semiauto pistols that fire the same cartridge, every ChiCom grenade, every SA-2 Guideline missile, and every MiG-15, -17, and -21. Both Red Chinese and Soviet sources, if memory serves. Ho got this largesse through fearing Chinese dominion? Please.

But that won't be enough evidence for you, TW. No factual evidence will ever jar you from your fellow-traveling. You are now trying to turn things to make ME the issue. You will fail, as you generally do. It's pretty clear you're only going to find out what you're up against the hard way.

[tw]

Originally Posted by tw

Urbane Guerrilla would even claim that Saddam was participatory in attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Nope.

Remarkable how many Americans think some other Americans believe that, and will insist to the rest of us that somebody else, somewhere on the continent, believes that. However, actually finding such people is damned hard -- I certainly don't know any.

From The Weekly Standard entitled
Case Closed

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

UG - just a little more history you forgot to learn before you rewrote it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Having lived through the 1960s, I don't recall that Richard Nixon thought of it in quite this way. He seems instead to have possessed the Republican capacity for resolve in war. Even with all our too-polite strategy, the communists remained stalemated until we left in 1973.

Johnson finally conceded that his Generals, especially Westmoreland, were lying to him. The war was not winnable. So Generals (and Urbane Guerrilla) wanted to take the war into other nations. The same Curtis LeMay, who also claimed we would win a nuclear exchange, agrees with UG. How scary is UG's world?

From McNamara's own analysis,

[The Vietnam War] had been an American war almost from its beginning: at first French-American, eventually wholly American. In both cases it was a struggle of Vietnamese ... against American policy and American financing, proxies, technicians, firepower, and finally, troops and pilots. ...
In terms of the UN Charter and of our own avowed ideals, [The Vietnam War] was a war of foreign aggression, American aggression.

Ok Urbane Guerrilla. You tell me about a Nixon who had a resolve for war. Nixon literally sent every remaining conventional weapon we had against N Vietnam. Results were exactly as virtually every intellegence agency had predicted in the 1960s. There were no military significant targets in N Vietnam. Bombing would not deter a nation from its declaration of indpendence. But then winning the war was not a Nixon agenda.

Having lived through the 60s, you only learned what was convenient. By 1969, this was a fact from the field as even stated to Johnson by Gen Westmoreland when Westmoreland was asking for another 1/2 million troops. The Vietnamese would match our troop strength no matter how many troops we sent into Vietnam. How is that war winnable when we remain in the world of reality?

Nixon also would not commit additional troops we really did not have. The 'polite' war had severely tapped out most conventional weapon systems. There were no reserves to deploy. And winning the war was long proven not possible as Nixon's own actions proved. Nixon was only interested in 'withdrawing with honor'. Just as long as a unilateral withdrawl did not happen under Nixon's watch. This was Nixon's secret plan to end the war. Sacrifice good men from my generation for his greater glory.

Realizing how badly the war was going, Nixon even proposed mutual troop withdrawls - and N Vietnam rejected the offer. Obviously. Why would N Vietnam that was winning the war and fighting for independence instead withdrawl troops? Meanwhile Nixon felt that as long as he keep up the war, then a N Vietnam flag would not fly in Saigon until after 1972. Nixon was primarily worried about how a N Vietnam flag in Saigon would affect Nixon's reputation; America be damned. Some Democrats also had the same self serving agenda - to make it more of Nixon's war. Again, America be damned.

By 1967, no S Vietnam military units would patrol at night. S Vietnamese unit commanders could be punished if they lost material in a VC battle because their primary mission was to protect the government ... from whom? Even in 1965 as well as in 1970

Almost no one from the embassy traveled much outside the environs of Saigon alone in a car; everyone moved by chopper or sometimes in a convoy.

This was a war that UG claims America could win? Ironically, Americans are just as restricted from movement in Iraq. Deja Vue.

Richard Nixon's primary interest in that war was to not have a N Vietnamese flag in Saigon until after 1972. Just another fact from history that UG rewrote.

Lets see. Something like 10% of the US B-52 force was lost over N Vietnam. Was this to cause them to surrender? Of course not. Even Nixon had conceded that victory was not possible. The B-52s were deployed to force N Vietnam to negotiate (in earnest) in Paris. The B-52s were a last conventional military option - the war was going that badly. Nixon deployed it to force a stalemate. Knowing that, Nixon still sent tens of thousands of my generation to their death. You talk honorably about this man. Shame on you for rewriting history only because it suits your self serving opinions. Shame on you for having so much contempt for the American soldier.

UG still knows that war could have been won. He also rewrites history when it is convenient. His lying exposed earlier in this thread. He even tries to change history about a mythical Saddam / bin Laden alliance. How convenient when he can rewrite history at will.

Urbane Guerrilla probably thinks Iraq will eventually be conquered. "Mission Accomplished" or Deja Vue. It means the same thing when history is nothing more than pulp fiction.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

TW, you are very much at pains to misread what I write, and the Case Closed article is one familiar to me. What you antis just refuse to wrap your minds around is that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys -- but didn't himself do 9-11, and we who want to win this understand that. We also understand that Ba'athist Iraq was part of the overall problem we would have to solve. Just as Hitler didn't bomb Pearl Harbor but needed to be defeated, so with Saddam. It is not legitimate to insist that Saddam doesn't parallel Hitler's case: he does. Dictators are more alike than different -- these two even share a penchant for facial hair and uniforms. What to do about dictators is more similar than different case by case also.

While I don't necessarily think US forces will be there at the end, the terrs in Iraq are notable in achieving absolutely nothing now, and will in the end be defeated -- by the rest of Iraq. They have nothing to offer but murders in aid of returning to the previous tyranny. The rest of Iraq isn't interested, and won't allow it.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by richlevy

I'm trying to figure out what a right-wing military junta in Burma has to do with communists.

I don't draw any particular link between them either. They are as isolationist as Radar and over twice as cranky. Combine this with totalitarianism and the army and police, and you've got Burma/Myanmar as one fucked-up sweet-potato patch.

As they put it in The Green Mile, "That's a bad combination."

Noxiousness need not have a global conspiracy to be noxious.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Who cares...they don't have anything we want.