Losing the War on Terror

[ViolentPanda]

Why unlikely?

How much direct input do you think the "AQ head office" had in the operational side of those two attacks?

Not a lot if they're attempting to sustain a traditional cell structure.

 

[Dhimmi]

What did William Westmorland say about winning the war in the field, but losing in in the papers ?

Not sure but there's a big difference, the seppos had endless daily reports from Viet Nam, the British press doesn't really go anywhere dangerous it's all heresay from hotel rooftops.

We seem to be limited to barely audible pool reports, with more to be found on youtube or liveleak... bizarre.

 

[fela fan]

The war on terror isnt meant to be won, like the war on drugs, it is just meant to last forever

Indeed max.

 

[laptop]

if AQ did not exist, then it would be in the interest of the West to create it

And who funded the original guesthouse in Peshawar, for brave anti-communist mujahedin en route to Afghanistan, known as The Base?

Pakstan's ISI, deniable conduit for money from the CIA.

 

[kyser_soze]

Didn't the CIA or Department of Homeland Security set up a stockmarket for diplomatic or military intelligence?

Nah, there was an attempt by Admiral Poindexter and a some RAND foundation type think tanks to set up a 'conflict futures' market which was as much hot air as the famour Iranian oil bourse.

And who funded the original guesthouse in Peshawar, for brave anti-communist mujahedin en route to Afghanistan, known as The Base?

Pakstan's ISI, deniable conduit for money from the CIA.

I believe that Al-q and OBL are what the CIA term 'blowback' - unforeseen consequences to what they euphemistically term 'outreach interventions' (i.e. CIA action funnelled via a 3rd party).

What it comes down to is some bunch of Ivy league CIA analysts who looked at OBL and the other Muj as a bunch of easily controlled religious zealots (you can see where their own preconceptions introduced the flaw in the initial conditions) who hated the fact that the Godless Russians were doing terrible things in Afghanistan like teaching from books other than the Koran, allowing women to have jobs and not making them sit out their periods in special buildings etc. They then went ahead and armed them to the teeth and went on to mount a genuinely successful intervention (with the help of the gradually collapsing Russian economy), in that once they had the Stinger the various tribes of Muj (there were, and are, many tribes in Afghanistan) removed the Soviets main battlefield advantage, the Hind-D gunship.

Of course, no-one at Langley considered that OBL and his gang MIGHT not be the religious idiots they were asssumed to be, or that they might have their own agenda for Afghanistan once the Russians were out...

 

[yield]

Nah, there was an attempt by Admiral Poindexter and a some RAND foundation type think tanks to set up a 'conflict futures' market which was as much hot air as the famour Iranian oil bourse.

Yes, that's the one. Thanks kyser_soze. </derail>

 

[George & Bill]

that other unwinnable battle against a noun

Much as I agree about the futility of both wars in question, sure a war on a noun is no more silly than a war on a verb, and TBPH actually somewhat more sensible than a war on an adjective?

 

[mears]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,,2124644,00.html

I guess seeing as the model for this idiocy was that other unwinnable battle against a noun, the War on Drugs, we shouldn't expect abject failure to necessarily precede a change in tactics.

Obviously we have not had a terrorist incident in the US since 9-11, so that is a major success. And for this the Bush administration deserves credit because you know if an incident had occurred you would all blame Bush.

We are fighting a global war on Islamic terrorism, from Bali to Barcelona and from London to Los Angeles. You can't just shut your eyes and pretend its not a major problem that will last for many years.

How much non Muslims can really accomplish in this fight is debateable. The Muslim world is responsible for their actions and they must sort out their problems amongst themselves.

The Muslim world must decide if they will educate their women. Muslims must decide if homosexuality is permitted or if such people should be prosecuted. The Muslim world must choose governing systems like a 7th century Caliphate on one extreme and secular democracy on the other. Muslims must work to ameliorate the fractions between Sunni and Shia. Muslims must decide if their societies will open up to glabalization and foreign investment or remain closed to protect traditional values.

As the world narrows all of this is coming into full focus fot the Ummah. And they will have some major decisions in the future.

 

[newharper]

Nice cruise Mears,

The Muslim world is responsible for their actions and they must sort out their problems amongst themselves.

What is they say about Americans again?

 

[detective-boy]

Not a lot if they're attempting to sustain a traditional cell structure.

But all the indications are that that is exactly what they are NOT doing ....

 

[jæd]

Why unlikely?

How much direct input do you think the "AQ head office" had in the operational side of those two attacks?

Probably a lot more than they do now... The 9/11 attack was the last time they could move freely. "AQ Head Office" is now cut-off (but could come back if things in the region destabilise) and is just another band-name... One of the problems AQ face is the nature of their attacks... And losing the Madrid bombers was probably a bit of a blow to them...

 

[Fruitloop]

But all the indications are that that is exactly what they are NOT doing ....

What indications?

 

[Fruitloop]

Obviously we have not had a terrorist incident in the US since 9-11, so that is a major success. And for this the Bush administration deserves credit because you know if an incident had occurred you would all blame Bush.

Terrorist spectaculars by their nature happen but rarely. You could have been similarly congratulating yourselves in 2000 that there had been no attack since the WTC bombing, and you'd have been equally misguided.

We are fighting a global war on Islamic terrorism, from Bali to Barcelona and from London to Los Angeles. You can't just shut your eyes and pretend its not a major problem that will last for many years.

You are supporting a war for global dominance. Many people are resisting you in many ways; some of them are Muslims and some of them are terrorists.

How much non Muslims can really accomplish in this fight is debateable. The Muslim world is responsible for their actions and they must sort out their problems amongst themselves.

Apart from the ones that you've either invaded or foisted repressive regimes on of course - oh hang on, that's most of them.

The Muslim world must decide if they will educate their women. Muslims must decide if homosexuality is permitted or if such people should be prosecuted. The Muslim world must choose governing systems like a 7th century Caliphate on one extreme and secular democracy on the other. Muslims must work to ameliorate the fractions between Sunni and Shia. Muslims must decide if their societies will open up to glabalization and foreign investment or remain closed to protect traditional values.

The last sentence gives it all away. What it is really about is capitalism and the compulsion to open up 'markets' (which may not yet be markets, but rather the collective property of the society in question) to inward investment. By yoking the desirable political aspects of liberal society (which you singularly fail to advance in your own country) to capitalist exploitation you inevitably lead many countries to reject both.

 

[nino_savatte]

Nah, there was an attempt by Admiral Poindexter and a some RAND foundation type think tanks to set up a 'conflict futures' market which was as much hot air as the famour Iranian oil bourse.

Eh? This really is capitalism gone mad!

 

[kyser_soze]

IIRC it was to be based on the derivatives model, and countries and regions were to be assigned 'hot spot' points and, based on a series of specific key indicators (e.g. how many AK-47s were leaking into a country) you made a derivative investment (aka 'bet') on if/when the country/region went into conflict.

 

[slaar]

Eh? This really is capitalism gone mad!

It certainly opens intriguing opportunities to the world's terrorists, security agencies and armies for some unique examples of insider trading.

 

[nino_savatte]

It certainly opens intriguing opportunities to the world's terrorists, security agencies and armies for some unique examples of insider trading.

I guess that's one way of looking at it.

 

[kyser_soze]

You may just as well set up a pool against every nation in the world and do a winner takes all thing - the whole notion of an Admiral, the US M-I complexes heavyweights, as well as crazies like RAND setting up a market about war that would be transparent or fair is laughable.

However, and on a completely unrelated topic, why haven't we seen a thread praising the arms dealers who supply Hiz/hez/hozbullah? I mean there's plenty written about how evil the merkins are for supplying the Israelis, so how about a big up to the 'Suppliers of Freedom'?

 

[Fruitloop]

How about we strangle every last one of the fuckers instead?

 

[kyser_soze]

Violence never solved anything, young man. *waggles finger sternly*

 

[zoltan]

You may just as well set up a pool against every nation in the world and do a winner takes all thing - the whole notion of an Admiral, the US M-I complexes heavyweights, as well as crazies like RAND setting up a market about war that would be transparent or fair is laughable.

However, and on a completely unrelated topic, why haven't we seen a thread praising the arms dealers who supply Hiz/hez/hozbullah? I mean there's plenty written about how evil the merkins are for supplying the Israelis, so how about a big up to the 'Suppliers of Freedom'?

Its makes sense - The Government could part fund future conflicts by taking a long position in an area of possible future conflict and shorting the positon when the index has risen to accomodate the rising likelyhood of it being the scne of action.

The possibilities of this type of exercise would be immense - wars would pay for themslves - the Losers in effect fronting the cost of action and aftermach

There are catastrophe Index trading desks for the Insurance industry, so they can hedge againt being overexposed to claims for Typhoons and Floods, so why not wars ?

It would give the conspiracists a field day tho'

 

[mears]

Terrorist spectaculars by their nature happen but rarely. You could have been similarly congratulating yourselves in 2000 that there had been no attack since the WTC bombing, and you'd have been equally misguided.



You are supporting a war for global dominance. Many people are resisting you in many ways; some of them are Muslims and some of them are terrorists.



Apart from the ones that you've either invaded or foisted repressive regimes on of course - oh hang on, that's most of them.


The last sentence gives it all away. What it is really about is capitalism and the compulsion to open up 'markets' (which may not yet be markets, but rather the collective property of the society in question) to inward investment. By yoking the desirable political aspects of liberal society (which you singularly fail to advance in your own country) to capitalist exploitation you inevitably lead many countries to reject both.

A war of "global dominace" now what the hell does that mean? What will the world look like if the US wins their master plan of global dominance?

Look, the cold war is over. Billions of people are entering capitalism via China and India alone, that is reality. Russia is not going back to the days of centralized planning anytime soon. North America and Western Europe are solidly entrenched in this world. Eastern Euope is now in this world and South America is in this world.

Muslims countries can either play the game, or what? Maybe the Middle East doesn't need western investment or markets for exports other than oil. Maybe they don't need transparent property laws or publicly traded companies. Is theere some economic principles they can adopt beyond this system to achieve higher standards of living? Maybe you know of such a system, if you do please tell me.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Obviously we have not had a terrorist incident in the US since 9-11, so that is a major success. And for this the Bush administration deserves credit because you know if an incident had occurred you would all blame Bush.<snip>

Yep, because UK citizens getting blown up on the tube don't count, 'cos they aren't septics. So it's all a big success, right?

 

[mears]

Yep, because UK citizens getting blown up on the tube don't count, 'cos they aren't septics. So it's all a big success, right?

You deal with your own problems and stop blaming others. Bush is not responsible for the radicalization of Muslims in Britian, Britian is responsible.

Good luck dealing with it.

 

[Roadkill]

You deal with your own problems and stop blaming others. Bush is not responsible for the radicalization of Muslims in Britian, Britian is responsible.

Good luck dealing with it.

If you think that the 'radicalisation of Muslims' here and elsewhere has nothing at all to do with what's going on in the wider world, you've got your head buried in the sand.

 

[Fruitloop]

A war of "global dominace" now what the hell does that mean? What will the world look like if the US wins their master plan of global dominance?

Look, the cold war is over. Billions of people are entering capitalism via China and India alone, that is reality. Russia is not going back to the days of centralized planning anytime soon. North America and Western Europe are solidly entrenched in this world. Eastern Euope is now in this world and South America is in this world.

Muslims countries can either play the game, or what? Maybe the Middle East doesn't need western investment or markets for exports other than oil. Maybe they don't need transparent property laws or publicly traded companies. Is theere some economic principles they can adopt beyond this system to achieve higher standards of living? Maybe you know of such a system, if you do please tell me.

Mears, you are just the mirror image of the Islamists you presume to oppose - your message is 'they must live our way or perish'. Your fortune-cookie analysis of the current geopolitical situation wafts past me like a gust of flatulent air.

 

[London_Calling]

His message seems to be you can't resist the Borg. I thought that what aspects of Islam were doing.

 

[Fruitloop]

I even have a smilie for the occasion:

 

[newharper]

A war of "global dominace" now what the hell does that mean? What will the world look like if the US wins their master plan of global dominance?

Remember Randy Newman's Political Science.

New Footage.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/political.php

 

[mears]

Mears, you are just the mirror image of the Islamists you presume to oppose - your message is 'they must live our way or perish'. Your fortune-cookie analysis of the current geopolitical situation wafts past me like a gust of flatulent air.

I believe in a womens right to wear what she wants and work where she wants. I believe in the seperation of church and state. I believe a country should let their people worship any religion under the sun, including the sun.

I am anything but a mirror image of Islamists. I am a heathen in their eyes.