Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 21, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Truthdigger of the Week: Naomi Klein




A Chronicle of Echoes


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

U.K. General: Al-Qaida Can Never Be Defeated

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 14, 2010
AP / Kirsty Wigglesworth

Head of the British army, Gen. Sir David Richards.

Britain’s highest military officer is offering some wisdom: Al-Qaida can never be completely defeated—an admission that comes almost 10 years into the “war on terror.” The British general is calling for a military focus on containing enemy fighters and not annihilation. —JCL

Al-Jazeera English:

Britain’s most senior officer has been quoted as saying that al-Qaeda can never be completely defeated.

David Richards, chief of the defence staff, said on Sunday that outright victory is “unnecessary” as long as governments are able to contain the fighters.

“First of all, you have to ask: ‘Do we need to defeat it (al-Qaeda) in the sense of a clear cut victory?’” Richards told British newspaper the Sunday Telegraph.

“I would argue that it is unnecessary and would never be achieved ... but can we contain it to the point that our lives and our children’s lives are led securely? I think we can.”

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 23, 2010 at 10:26 am Link to this comment

diamond, - “do I sound insecure to you?”

-

I always write what I mean and I always mean what I write.

You don’t “sound” insecure.  Your actions make it abundantly clear that you suffer more than a few significant insecurities. -  We will all do well to remember that the things people say are rarely more important than why they say them.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 22, 2010 at 11:42 pm Link to this comment

diamond:

“When you’re in a hole, stop digging. As for being insecure: do I sound insecure to you? That’s not what my friends tell me.”

No really. You need to stop embarrassing yourself. You don’t have any friends. You live in your pajamas in your mother’s basement. Turn this blog over to the adults and let it go.

Report this

By diamond, November 22, 2010 at 10:00 pm Link to this comment

Wrong again GRYM. I am not a young individual but I do know how to do analysis and research and you don’t. I do know how to read history and draw accurate conclusions from what I read and you don’t. When you’re in a hole, stop digging. As for being insecure: do I sound insecure to you? That’s not what my friends tell me.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 22, 2010 at 6:08 pm Link to this comment

diamond,

I couldn’t get past the first two sentences of your last post.  The second you make everything personal you know you’ve lost. - It’s the surest sign of insecurity.

Obviously you’re a young individual.  If I may?  a. don’t get sucked into the Blog world thinking your anonymity gives you license to be petulant. b. the globe is a larger place, with a great deal more players, than you have yet to imagine.

-

The United States is not what’s wrong with the world.  Look around.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 22, 2010 at 6:00 pm Link to this comment

GYRM:

Guess he told us. How ‘bout them Cowboys!

Like I said before, I surrender, but this time I mean it.

Report this

By diamond, November 22, 2010 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment

Having completely lost the argument you console yourselves with talking sport. Stick with that. It’s safer for people as intellectually challenged and with such an inadequate understanding of history as you. On American history you’re a mile wide and an inch deep and if anyone ventures outside your safe zone you go ape and pretend what they’re saying is ‘insane’ or untrue. You can’t defend a position that America is in Afghanistan to do anyone except BP, Unocal and some Saudi oil companies any good because the whole of America’s history of military interventions proves it’s not true. And studying that history proves that what’s happened in Iraq and Afghanistan is only what was always going to happen. Eventually those who had their countries invaded and occupied would find a way to fight back and even to win. For the corporations and their army this is a disaster but not for those who care about justice and human progress.

The truth is a group like the Taliban is as big a threat to the world as the IRA was. Minuscule in other words. The whole issue is a local issue (a fight between the corrupt, conservative, drug trafficking Northern Alliance and the even more conservative poppy field burning Taliban) not a global one. Just as the British fight with its Irish colony was. If the corporations didn’t want to build that oil and gas pipeline across Afghanistan to Karachi the troops would have been pulled out long ago. They’re not there to defend America, they’re there to defend the right of corporations to occupy third world countries and steal their resources. It’s nothing new and it’s certainly not an aberration for America: just business as usual. What’s different is that America has lost both wars against a third world enemy. Rather than face these facts you prefer to talk garbage about sport and, clearly, that says a lot about your capacity for debate and your interest in world affairs.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 22, 2010 at 3:53 pm Link to this comment

Rico, - “When he wrote me his last post, the Steelers were in fact kicking ass.’ - ‘When he said the “Stealers” weren’t scoring many points, he was talking about YOU and ardee you stupid moron.”

-

Bingo.  The Steelers were, in fact, kicking ass at the time while the Stealers were having a very hard time scoring.

The difference between imagining something and knowing.

wink

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 21, 2010 at 6:44 pm Link to this comment

diamond:

Let me explain something to you.

I told GRYM I was a Steelers fan.

When he wrote me his last post, the Steelers were in fact kicking ass.

When he said the “Stealers” weren’t scoring many points, he was talking about YOU and ardee you stupid moron.

Once again, your only weapon is name calling, which I chose to employ here because it seems that’s all you understand, and listing American sins as if they were the only sins to exist.

Which, of course, has nothing to do with “containing” AQ, or answering GRYM’s question about whether or not you’ve read bin Laden or Zawahiri.

Anthrax letters!!! What the FUCK does that have to do with this topic?

Report this

By diamond, November 21, 2010 at 6:25 pm Link to this comment

If you’re referring to the Pittsburgh Steelers, moron, that’s not how you spell it. And neither you nor rico, (Igor to your mad scientist)have scored a single point since you started your ridiculous campaign to defend the war in Afghanistan as righteous and to pretend that America is pure of heart and a knight on a white horse. Your comment on Ukraine is typical. To compare that with America’s systematic plunder of third world nations, using its army -which is supposedly there to defend America - as storm troopers, contract killers and election monitors in foreign lands on orders of the corporations is ridiculous and you know it.

To my knowledge, Russia/Soviet Union invaded Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and The Czech Republic, briefly in 1968. Putins’s war in Chechnya has been horrific but that was not the Soviet Union’s war. That is and was the FSB’s post-Soviet war, a manufactured war based on bombings carried out in Moscow by the FSB in 1999,which were blamed on Chechnya. This may even have been the CIA/Pentagon’s inspiration for 9/11.

When you put that alongside America’s 177 military interventions in some of the poorest countries on earth (such as Afghanistan) and occupations (some decades long)of those countries you can see that there is no comparison in terms of numbers of attacks and numbers of countries invaded and occupied. But perhaps you’re as hopeless at numbers as you are at spelling.

It always amuses me that people who know that the neo cons are criminals and liars can believe they lied about everything else except for 9/11 and the anthrax letters. On that they are next to God in terms of truthfulness and virtue. Better duck, a pig’s flying over and it’s a big one.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 21, 2010 at 5:17 pm Link to this comment

GRYM:

LOL. Good one.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 21, 2010 at 4:19 pm Link to this comment

Rico, - “Of course diamond will nitpick and say Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union.”—And the reason to ask an Ukrainian how he or she feels about that.

Looks like the Stealers are having a hard time scoring.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 21, 2010 at 2:33 pm Link to this comment

GRYM:

Of course diamond will nitpick and say Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. But, then again, to admit that would be to admit that the old USSR was made up of far more than just Russia proper, which blows big holes in his claim that Russia didn’t invade, occupy, blow up, etc, etc, other countries, like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kazakh-, Uzbek-, Kyrgyz- and Tadjikistan, Belarus, Georgia, Chechnya(!).

Let’s compare Stalin’s campaign against the Kulaks with diamond’s atrocity du jour, Wounded Knee. 30 million during a protracted campaign of genocide vs 300 in a single battle. But what’s a factor of 100,000 among buddies?

Then there’s the small matter of Warsaw Pact countries. What do you think? Was East Germany more independent of Soviet influence than West Germany was of US influence? Was Hungary more independent than England? Poland than Italy? Need I go on?

I’m sure by diamond’s lights the Warsaw Pact was ever paradise, if he knows what the Warsaw Pact was.

You’re right too. I wasn’t going to respond anymore either but, God he’s such an easy touch!

Oh, crap! The Steelers are on. Later.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 21, 2010 at 10:18 am Link to this comment

diamond, - “the Soviet Union’s worst crimes were committed against their own people”

-

I truly wish to give you the last word.  I simply could not allow this to pass.

While I would almost certainly feel profoundly sickened by your ignorance, I would like to be in the room when you make that same statement to an Ukrainian.  I would be interested in your reaction while you are made aware of the violence, blood, and mountains of corpses. - Stalin would stay awake at night making out “Death Lists”. Lists that often included several thousand souls.  Yes, in one evening.

You also make a terrific mistake in believing you can do an Yahoo search, pull the number 27 million, and pretend you know something of world events.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 21, 2010 at 8:24 am Link to this comment

ardee:

“I assume that the lack of response by others here is an indication both of their lack of real impact and an aversion to lying down with these two pigs in their self made sty.”

Or it could be everyone else is too embarrassed to come to your defense.

Report this

By diamond, November 21, 2010 at 2:49 am Link to this comment

GRYM, 27 million Russians died resisting the Nazis. How many Americans died in World War II? 292,000 is the accepted figure. Obviously the Russian attachment to fighting Fascism was much more intense than America’s and demanded much bigger sacrifices. And the true comparison is, how many third world countries did the Soviet Union invade, bomb, bully and occupy and rob. I think you’ll find there’s an equally shocking disparity there too, in both numbers of countries attacked and occupied and frequency of attacks and occupations. My grasp of history lacks your monomaniacal focus on what you see as the left: I, on the other hand, look at all the facts, not just the ones that support a fanatical attachment to a certain ideology and a false historical narrative. I don’t defend the Soviet Union, the record there speaks for itself, but the Soviet Union’s worst crimes were committed against their own people while America’s have been against foreigners in small developing nations who can’t defend themselves against the nuclear armed global bully in any way.  I don’t defend America’s Fascism either but, unlike you, I don’t see any reason why I should, or why anyone should.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 21, 2010 at 12:09 am Link to this comment

For those paying attention this is a global war.

-

Ten-Year ‘Action Plan’
(GMT/UTC): 20.11.2010 13:45

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the NATO leaders had approved a new 10-year strategy aimed at clearing the way for the alliance to operate far beyond Europe and to counter threats from terrorism and Internet attacks.

Rasmussen said the strategic concept is “not just a statement of principles” but “an action plan” setting out concrete steps NATO will take in the years ahead:

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 20, 2010 at 10:32 pm Link to this comment

GRYM:

Those deaths in Russia, China and Iraq are of no consequence, and can be justified in any case, precisely because the US wasn’t involved (or maybe it waaaaaaaas….. oooooooh.)

And I must respectfully disagree. He is insane. His desperate attachment to the 9/11 truther thing is textbook paranoia.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 20, 2010 at 10:19 pm Link to this comment

diamond:

Obsessive? Obsessive!! You’re a poster child for Tourettes syndrome. The T-t-t-win Towers. F-f-f-fucking C-c-c-cia!!! F-f-f-f-fucking B-b-b-b-bush! F-f-f-fucking Ch-ch-ch-cheney! I bet there’s dried spit all over your computer screen.

And like GRYM so clearly pointed out, you know nothing of world history, only US history, for which you have an unexplained, and unexplainable, pathological contempt. Do tell us about your childhood.

Your ability to list all the American international involvements of the last 120 years is truly impressive. Obsessive/Compulsive, but impressive.

Would that you could recite Russian, or Chinese, history from 1890 as fluently.

I can’t wait to pick on you on the next thread.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 20, 2010 at 8:01 pm Link to this comment

Rico, - And as for Russia: “This man is clinically insane.”

-

Perhaps you can refresh my memory.  How many years ago did 50 million people die inside the Soviet Union alone?  How many Chinese died in the Korean war?  Was it 300,000 or 400,000 found in mass graves in Iraq?

Never mind.  It doesn’t matter. 

Blame America First!

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 20, 2010 at 7:43 pm Link to this comment

diamond,

LOL….I don’t believe you’re insane but, it does seem there’s not much more to say.  I’ll end with simple frankness. a. one either knows who Osama bin Laden claims to be or one does not.  No gray areas there. b. you’ll find that your belief that the Twin Towers was felled by the U.S. government excludes you from anything truly constructive.  Good luck and all my best with that.

-

I simply invite anyone to study the names, backgrounds and circumstances of the “reported” key players in and amongst the “alleged” battles against “suspected” dangerous Islamic fundamentalists already mentioned in this thread.  -  Allegedly. wink

You get the last word.

Report this

By diamond, November 20, 2010 at 6:46 pm Link to this comment

To be called insane, clinically or otherwise, by a clueless scumbag like you rico, is a compliment. Thank you.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 20, 2010 at 6:25 pm Link to this comment

GRYM:

“And as for Russia: if you think Russia has anything like America’s rap sheet you’re dreaming. Russia is a poor relation when it comes to invading, bombing, occupying and overthrowing elected governments, America is the number one arms dealer in the world and also the number one aggressor:”

This man is clinically insane.

Report this

By diamond, November 20, 2010 at 4:17 pm Link to this comment

There you two obsessives go again with your magic two questions. Oh, if only I would answer them, all would be revealed. I’ve already answered those questions, several times, to the effect that no one really knows what bin Laden has said about anything because it’s all mediated by the intelligence services who TELL US what he has said so what he is alleged to have said is of no interest to me because there’s no way of verifying any of it. And when the CIA puts videos of men with black beards who are not bin Laden on the internet and the mainstream media just accepts that this person is bin Laden it certainly doesn’t do anything to repair my complete lack of faith in those bastards. As for what bin Laden wants: who cares what he is alleged to want. It’s irrelevant since he’s probably dead and even if he was alive he has no way of doing anything or going anywhere without being recognized since he now has one of the most famous faces in the world and is about six foot five. You are just playing that same old Fascist game - how many fingers am I holding up? You think if you can get people answering the wrong questions they will of course come up with the wrong answers. I don’t play that game. So Rico can take his ‘simple question’ (knowing his intellectual limitations it would have to be a damn simple question) and shove it where the sun don’t shine.

And as for Russia: if you think Russia has anything like America’s rap sheet you’re dreaming. Russia is a poor relation when it comes to invading, bombing, occupying and overthrowing elected governments, America is the number one arms dealer in the world and also the number one aggressor:

300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee (1890) Chile, Marines clash with nationalist rebels (1891) Haiti, Black revolt on Navassa defeated (1891) Hawaii, independent kingdom overthrown, annexed (1893) Chicago, troops break rail strike, 34 killed (1894) Nicaragura, month-long occupation of Bluefields (1894), China, marines land in Sino-Japanese war (1894), Korea, marines kept in Seoul during war (1894-1896), Panama, marines land in Columbian province (1895), Nicaragua, marines land in port of Corinto (1896), Phillipines, seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Phillipinos (1898-), Cuba, seized from Spain, occupation continues at Guantanamo Bay (1898-), Puerto Rico, seized from Spain, occupation continues (1898-),Guam, seized from Spain, still used as base (1898-), Nicaragua, marines land at port of San Juan del Sur (1898), Nicaragua, marines land at port of Bluefields (1899), Idaho, army occupies Coeur d’Alene mining region (1899-1901), Panama, broke off from Columbia 1903, annexed Canal Zone (1914), Honduras, marines intervene in revolution (1903), Dominican Republic, US troops protect US interests in revolution (1903-04), Korea, marines land in Russo-Japanese war (1904-05), Cuba, marines land in democratic election (1906-09), Nicaragua, ‘dollar democracy’ set up (1907), Honduras, marines land during war with Nicaragua (1907), Panama, marines intervene in election contest (1908), Nicaragua, marines land in Bluefields and Corinto (1910), Honduras, troops protect US interests in civil war (1911), China, continuous occupation with flare-ups (1911-1941), Cuba, army protects US interests during civil war (1912), Panama, marines land during heated election (1912),Haiti, troops sent in, bombing, 19 year occupation after revolts (1914-1934), Dominican Redpublic, 8 year marine occupation (1916-24) Cuba, military occupation, economic protectorate (1917-33).

That’s when WWI started and then the fun and the money really began. The military industrial complex realized exactly how much money there was to be made from wars - and they’ve never stopped since.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 20, 2010 at 11:26 am Link to this comment

GRYM:

There you go changing the subject you fascist moron. {;-)

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 20, 2010 at 11:23 am Link to this comment

Rico,

Oh shit…I’m a Dawgs fan.

Here’s to hoping my weekend is better than yours! ..LOL

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 20, 2010 at 11:05 am Link to this comment

GRYM:

You too. Go Steelers.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 20, 2010 at 10:40 am Link to this comment

Rico,

“no intelligence service in the world could do what he claims two guys held in a Federal Prison managed to do” - Manchild

-

Exactly where did I make any such claim? LOL….This is why I have Manchild’s rants omitted altogether.

Thank you, Rico.  No need to share this individual’s rants any further.

Have a great weekend.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 20, 2010 at 9:51 am Link to this comment

GRYM:

The latest from ardee:

“Go Right Young Man, November 20 at 4:21 am

The gist of this post is that no intelligence service in the world could do what he claims two guys held in a Federal Prison managed to do….Hmmm.

It is important to note that these two jackwagons have managed to deflect real debate and even conversation with a series of stupidities far too unbelievable to consider and, when factual data showing the stupidity is offered they quickly move along to the next series of said imbecilities.

Time to ignore the children and get on with adult conversations…I assume that the lack of response by others here is an indication both of their lack of real impact and an aversion to lying down with these two pigs in their self made sty.”

I surrender.

Report this

By ardee, November 20, 2010 at 7:45 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man, November 20 at 4:21 am

The gist of this post is that no intelligence service in the world could do what he claims two guys held in a Federal Prison managed to do….Hmmm.

It is important to note that these two jackwagons have managed to deflect real debate and even conversation with a series of stupidities far too unbelievable to consider and, when factual data showing the stupidity is offered they quickly move along to the next series of said imbecilities.

Time to ignore the children and get on with adult conversations…I assume that the lack of response by others here is an indication both of their lack of real impact and an aversion to lying down with these two pigs in their self made sty.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 19, 2010 at 11:21 pm Link to this comment

Rico,

I want to stress again a point I made prior.  The 1993 World Trade Center bombing was, in part, devised and logistically planned from within the walls of U.S. Federal prisons. - This very directly speaks to containment issues.

Anyone interested can study El Sayyid Nosair and Abdel Rahman.  There are dozens of witnesses of various events, thousands of pages of New York Federal Court documents and evidence, hundreds of hours of FBI undercover investigation and several hours of open and closed congressional testimony to draw from.  The details on these two men, from literally hundreds of independent sources, is staggering.

These men, and many like them, are real.  They are one of the most lethal threats the world faces today.  The evidence of this is, literally, exorbitant.  Clearly this is not about the united States.  This war is being fought in over 60 countries openly and more than 100 in total. All against the same lethal threat(s). 

No intelligence agency in the world is capable of such feats.  Not alone and not in concert.

-

This is another of those issues nobody, and I do mean nobody, on TruthDig is willing to tackle.  Most have never heard of Nosair.  Only a handful are vaguely aware of Rahman. - Let me know if Manchild copy and pastes from WiKi and claims he knows of these two….(SMILE)

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 19, 2010 at 10:25 pm Link to this comment

Rico, - “There has got to be a formal description in pathology to describe diamond. He is psychologically incapable of answering two simple questions, for fear that just the act of answering, no matter the content of the answer, would signal some type of unacceptable concession to your point of view.”

-

Precisely.

Diamond exerts a good deal of attention on the actions and history of the United States.  He sincerely believes he has a good handle on U.S. history.  And if we look at his recent list we can see that he is partially correct.  The problem comes in that it seems as though that’s all he has studied. The United States. 

Diamond can tell us the many things he believes bin Laden to be or not to be, however, he can’t tell us who bin Laden claims to be or what Osama claims his goals are.  I would be willing to wager that diamond would be unable to give us the much lengthier list of U.S.S.R., Russian, Chinese, French, Syrian, Iraqi and German military histories since 1890. - Of course without that additional information we take entire global history out of all context.  And without that much needed context the United States, to diamond, looks like the sole evil superpower running roughshod over the globe.

-

Manchild has latched onto a true and legitimate horror of war concerning a precision missile strike on an wedding party (several years past), and uses that as evidence of wholesale massacre across an entire nation.  The victims of war are tools and talking points to this individual.  It’s sad but true :(

-

The entire subject here has been in regards to the possible “Containment -v- Defeat” of Al Qaeda types.  That is what you and I have stayed with on this entire thread.  Others, however, have furiously attempted to change the subject while meshing within every post, for days-on-end, personal rants rooted in pure frustration over their inability to answer, what truly ought to be, the most fundamental questions on the subject.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 19, 2010 at 7:02 pm Link to this comment

ardee:

What do you mean obfuscate? I started my posts on this thread by asking a simple question- What does it mean to “contain” AQ? And GRYM started by asking if there was anyone who had read bin Laden and/or Zawahiri. How is that an obfuscation? You and diamond began the obfuscation with your stupid “Mussolini” and “cesspool buddy” rants.

Let me post this for you AGAIN: “Ayatollah Khomeini was clear about his jihadist intentions — “Our people is the people of blood and our school is the school of Jihad.’ ‘We will export our revolution to the world. Until the cry ‘There is no God but God’ resounds over the whole world, there will be struggle.”

I don’t separate AQ and the Shiites when it comes to radical Islamist intentions.

Rants are the refuge of ignorant children.

If you are incapable or unprepared to answer the SIMPLEST questions, let’s move on.

Report this

By ardee, November 19, 2010 at 6:52 pm Link to this comment

rico, suave, November 19 at 9:39 pm Link to this comment

ardee:

“AlQaeda has listed a series of demands that they state will end their conflict with the West. Number one being all western troops out of Saudi Arabia.”

Can’t argue with that.

Of course not, just like your cesspool buddy you are not here to “argue” only to obfuscate. You slide from one stupidity to another with barely a bated breath.

How about number two, “There is no God but God”?

See, there’s another such stupidity now. I believe the list of Alqaeda demands had as number two the ending of support for all muslim nations by the West. But then you aren’t really interested in fact, only some psycho freak game. Play with yourself.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 19, 2010 at 4:39 pm Link to this comment

ardee:

“AlQaeda has listed a series of demands that they state will end their conflict with the West. Number one being all western troops out of Saudi Arabia.”

Can’t agrue with that.

How about number two, “There is no God but God”?

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 19, 2010 at 4:34 pm Link to this comment

GRYM:

There has got to be a formal description in pathology to describe diamond. He is psychologically incapable of answering two simple questions, for fear that just the act of answering, no matter the content of the answer, would signal some type of unacceptable concession to your point of view.

Report this

By ardee, November 19, 2010 at 4:33 pm Link to this comment

ardee: What “lies” have I told? Please list a few so I can correct myself. Find me a quote which supports your claim that I am a Mussolini.

My comment regarding lies were more directed to your staunch ally, Herr Goebels ( Grym the fairy tale king). I believe I concentrated on your “bloodthirsty solution” to our nemesis AlQaeda.

As to his not getting my posts he certainly comments upon them often enough, is he perhaps psychic…nope just another in a series of lies. Enough about one who I find personally offensive.

Now, as to you own personal offensiveness…and by the by, since you returned with a name change you yourself have become more strident and much further to the extreme right, at least regarding the Middle East.

Here we find you in full stride:

How, practically speaking, do we contain them? How do you “contain” Osama bin Laden? Do we take their passports away from them? Do we make them register somewhere? Void their credit cards and close their bank accounts? You can’t restrict a private citizen like that, even if you know he might be up to no good some day soon. That’s discrimination and denies habeas corpus and we can’t have that! And if we wait for him to prove he needs to be contained, then containment has failed.

Youre jesting right? We have done exatly what you claim we cannot do and to many folks whose guilt or innocence is determined, not in a court of law, but in a secret room around a conference table.

Sir Richard would make a terrific academic, living as he does in the world of “I wish” and completely out of touch with the nastiness of the real world.

The only way to contain them is to kill them.

AlQaeda has listed a series of demands that they state will end their conflict with the West. Number one being all western troops out of Saudi Arabia. I have heard these demands, I suspect everyone, including you, has heard them or of them at least. Yet you posit that only continued genocide offers a solution.

I offer that this failed in Viet Nam, failed in every case of guerrilla warfare ( what we now call terrorism)across the board. Yet you offer only murder.

Every so-called terrorist group are someones elses freedom fighters. Every one of them needs the sympathies of the population in which they move in order to be effective and remain uncaught. Treating an indigenous population as so many cattle to be slaughtered, as your horrific position supports, actually strengthens those fighters.

This is elementary logic and that it escapes you makes your position worthy of the low opinion you seem to abhor. That you associate with, and support our resident Rush Limbaugh, in the sty of his coninually avoiding the hard facts that refute his lies, as he has done since changing his name and returning here is simply a case of lying down with dogs and getting fleas.

Offering only death as as solution is pretty damn dumb.

Report this

By diamond, November 19, 2010 at 4:30 pm Link to this comment

“diamond,

I can’t help but notice that you’ve been unable to answer some truly fundamental questions about this entire subject. Why is that?”

Pathetic. I can’t help but notice that you are:

1. A moron

2. A liar

The tone you take is the one taken by HAL in ‘A Space Odyssey 2001’: I’m so reasonable, I’m so right, I’m so robotic, I’m so limited, I’m so not telling the truth. Because the truth is that the USA is the most aggressive, most militarized society on earth as the 177 military interventions in its history since 1890 prove. The narrative of America the threatened, America the righteous, America the victim of terrorists, America the beacon of light and democracy is just propaganda. Just a cover story for the Fascists who run the military and its corporate wing. You’re not doing the US any favors by lying and playing with words. You can’t defend the indefensible - no one can - and you can mock Ardee as long as you like: Ardee is right and you are wrong. However long you whine and re-arrange the events, the facts don’t bear out your sanitized, triumphalist version of history - or your version of the war of terror.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 19, 2010 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment

GRYM:

I know you don’t receive ardee’s posts so here’s his latest one to you. Unbelievable.

“Go Right Young Man, November 19 at 1:10 pm

While Diamond is perfectly capable of dealing with your smarmy changes of subject and detours away from the embarrassing gaffes you commit with regularity I just thought I’d note that you aint fooling anyone.

His last response was a marvel of accuracy and exploded your nonsense like a needle punctures a balloon. This latest crap you spew, in an obvious and blatant attempt to run from your innaccuracies as exposed so well vis-a-vis the Taliban’s offer to give up bin Laden, simply highlights how ridiculous a figure you cut here.

Keep changing the subject, its all you got.

signed,
“Manchild”...hee”

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 19, 2010 at 11:23 am Link to this comment

GRYM:

Sorry you’re not getting ardee’s posts. He was much more sober in the past. I don’t know what has happened to him. Something about his “gorge” rising up. Some intestinal blockage I guess.

Anyway, the gist of his answers to our questions is basically- “You’re a fascist!” And the more we tryto steer them back to the questions, the more fascistic we become. Go figure.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 19, 2010 at 11:03 am Link to this comment

Rico,

You lend further evidence that real life is far more interesting than most conspiracy theories.

I have great doubts that diamond is able to answer our basic questions. 

If Manchild attempts an answer to our three, truly fundamental, questions let me know.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 19, 2010 at 9:24 am Link to this comment

GRYM:

It’s obvious the only answers these guys are capable of generating to your two, and my one, simple questions is, “You’re a fascist imperialist genocidal murderer.” And since on one else is on this thread anymore, I’m done responding.

Add to that diamond’s continuing and ardee’s disturbingly increasing inability to maintain any semblance of cool rationality let alone defend their positions.

Guys- a rant is not an argument. Blaming everything on Bush and the neocons is just intellectually lazy.

diamond: Are you blaming the US for an invasion/bombing/overthrow/occupation of SYRIA in 2008? Are you insane?? You lose all credibility when you make stupid claims like that. Also, try and answer GRYM’s simple questions.

ardee: What “lies” have I told? Please list a few so I can correct myself. Find me a quote which supports your claim that I am a Mussolini.

OK, I’ll make it easy for you. If wanting to defend my country, and having no visceral hatred for Bush, the neocons and the US military makes me a fascist, then I guess I’m guilty as charged. But, once again, and typical for a so-called progressive, you go the Orwell route and drain an otherwise perfectly understood word of all meaning. How does it advance the debate for me to call you a bloodthirsty Maoist communist, just because we disagree politically?

“Slaughter of the Muslim world.” What does a phrase like that even mean? Is that what we’re doing? REALLY? Are you insane? That’s as idiotic as diamond’s claim that drone missions are designed to blow up wedding parties.

“must resort to silly name calling…” Are you serious? Your two posts are pure personal attack, except for that stupid list of US sins of yours, diamond.

” become more desperate to defend torture, genocide, imperialism and war profiteering” Show me one quote in any post any time where I have “defended” those things.

Ok, once again, I’ll make it easy for you. If, by merely disagreeing with YOU ardee, I’m “defending” those things, then I guess I’m guilty.

diamond, you’re a wothless opponent. ardee, I hope you’ll recover.

Report this

By ardee, November 19, 2010 at 8:59 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man, November 19 at 1:10 pm

While Diamond is perfectly capable of dealing with your smarmy changes of subject and detours away from the embarrassing gaffes you commit with regularity I just thought I’d note that you aint fooling anyone.

His last response was a marvel of accuracy and exploded your nonsense like a needle punctures a balloon. This latest crap you spew, in an obvious and blatant attempt to run from your innaccuracies as exposed so well vis-a-vis the Taliban’s offer to give up bin Laden, simply highlights how ridiculous a figure you cut here.

Keep changing the subject, its all you got.

signed,
“Manchild”...hee

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 19, 2010 at 8:10 am Link to this comment

diamond,

I can’t help but notice that you’ve been unable to answer some truly fundamental questions about this entire subject. Why is that?

1. Have you ever listened to bin Laden?
2. Who does he claim to be and what does he claim his goals to be?

Should we assume that a) you’ve never taken the time and b) you simply don’t know?

Report this

By ardee, November 19, 2010 at 6:57 am Link to this comment

Diamond

While the lies and silliness of the two who must talk to themselves or their own hands seems obvious enough I do appreciate the slap down you administered. Not that it will reach its intended target, that is not the point after all, exposing nonsense becomes increasingly important in an era when our own leaders refuse their own obligation to do so.

That both GRYM and rico whats with the comma? believe the facts are what they say they are seems moot.That they attempt an even more impossible task of convincing us all that the slaughter of the Muslim world must continue because a tiny percentage of fundamentalists preach a violence that most followers of Islam reject is difficult enough. That they are both rather intellectually ill equipped for the task and must resort to silly name calling ( hey GRYM that wouldn’t have bothered me in public school much less now…and it does note your previous incarnation here, ending in your humiliation and flight.) is a telling point against them as well.

The truth shines through and , as they become even more desperate to defend torture, genocide, imperialism and war profiteering, the lies will show even more glaringly and their own lack of any sort of morality, or even of a solid case, will become more and more obvious.

Report this

By diamond, November 19, 2010 at 5:30 am Link to this comment

“BTW:  Taliban leaders never offered to turn bin Laden over to the Bush Administration.  The, so-called, offer was to turn bin Laden over to a third Muslim nation if the U.S. President agreed to terms they knew in advance the U.S. could never agree to. 

There was no real offer to hand bin Laden over to anyone.  I caution you not to get caught up in Manchild’s brilliant fantasies.  Fantasies which always places the United States, a representative form of government, beneath her enemies. “


An offer to turn bin Laden over was made: first you deny it, then lay out what you believe were the conditions. If there are conditions, then the offer was made. The rest of your spiel is just tap dancing, such as saying there was no ‘real’ offer, what does that actually mean?

Also, what is your explanation for the anthrax letters sent to Democrat senators in October 2001 and the FBI’s attempts to frame two men for the crime, one of whom committed suicide? Was that bin Laden too or was that Saddam Hussein? Another person who had nothing to do with 9/11: but that didn’t stop Bush, the village idiot, from talking drivel about smoking guns in the shape of a mushroom cloud and invading Iraq anyway. The brilliant fantasy is that the neo cons didn’t plan and execute their New Pearl Harbour so they could invade the Middle East to set up puppet governments and steal the oil. Your sanctimonious, self-righteous propaganda can’t change the facts and Rico now sounds like Mussolini on a rampage. Apparently the leaders of Iran are not rational but, wait for it, HE IS! Only in America.

You’re big on Iranian aggression but the fact is Iran hasn’t invaded anyone or attacked anyone for around 200 years. Iraq attacked Iran at US instigation and the US then proceeded to arm both sides and made a motzah. You, of course, don’t mention the fact that the CIA got rid of Mossadegh (1953)because he nationalized Iran’s oil and then put the Shah in power. Or that the Shah had a secret service with torture prisons that would give Guantanamo Bay a run for its money. The Islamic revolution was a direct result of US policy that allowed the CIA to play with the Iranians as if they were chess pieces. As they continue to do to this day. America has bombed, invaded or overthrown democratically elected governments in a multitude of countries since the end of World War II so I’m afraid I don’t share your starry eyed admiration for American ‘democracy’ which is not democracy but is in fact polyarchy, a system where an elite decides what will happen and then manufactures consent - as Noam Chomsky wrote a long time ago.

Countries the US has attacked, bombed, occupied or where elected governments were overthrown since WWII:

Iran (1946), Yugoslavia, Uruguay, Greece, Phillipines, Puerto Rico, Korea, Iran (1953), Guatamala, Vietnam (1954), Lebanon, Panama,Cuba, Laos, Iraq (1963), Indonesia, Dominican Republic, United States (after King is shot, 21,000 soldiers in cities), Cambodia, Oman, Chile, Angola, Iran (1980), El Salvador, Nicaragua, Lebanon (1982-84), Grenada, Libya (1986), Iran (1987-88), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991), Kuwait (1991), Iraq (1991-2003), Los Angeles (1992, Army, Marines deployed in anti-police uprising), Somalia (1992-1994), Yugoslavia (1992-94), Bosnia (1993), Haiti, Zaire (Congo), Sudan (1998), Afghanistan (1998), Iraq (1998), Yugoslavia (1999), Yemen (2000), Afghanistan (2001), Yemen (2002), Phillipines (2002, Iraq (2003, Haiti (2004-2005), Pakistan (2005), Somalia (2000), Syria (2008), Yemen (2009).

If I’d started in 1890 with the massacre of the Lakota Indians at Wounded Knee the list would have been a hell of a lot longer. I had no idea, for example, that the US army suppressed a silver miner’s strike in Idaho in 1892. Defenseless, aren’t they?

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 18, 2010 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment

rico,

To add to your comments to Manchild. There is a context to this global war that must not be forgotten. 

According to Zawahiri, Nasrallah, bin Laden, Nosair and Rahman (The Blind Sheikh) there is but one acceptable outcome.  Submit to Allah or die.  That context is found in each of their teachings and writings.

-

It’s important to remember that the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was devised and logistically planned from within the walls of U.S. Federal prisons by Nosair, Rahman and others.  Those men were, by most accounts, “contained”.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 18, 2010 at 1:52 pm Link to this comment

ardee:

This (stolen from another poster) from one of your favorite folks:

Ayatollah Khomeini was clear about his jihadist intentions — “Our people is the people of blood and our school is the school of Jihad.’ ‘We will export our revolution to the world. Until the cry ‘There is no God but God’ resounds over the whole world, there will be struggle.”

Now then, tell me again what the West has to do to keep these radical Islamists “contained”. Are you ready to proclaim that “There is no God but God”?

These are not rational state actors we’re dealing with, who can be negotiated with or appeased. These are religious fanatics who will settle for only one outcome, which is not satisfied merely by US disavowal of “imperialism.”

How can you root for these people and expect to be taken seriously?

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 18, 2010 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment

GRYM:

Thx for the perspective.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 18, 2010 at 1:25 pm Link to this comment

Rico,

Let’s talk now in terms of the real world in which over six billion people live.

Even in years when a national election doesn’t dominate our attention, we seldom think much about an event that happened the first week in November 31 years ago. On the fourth of that month, a band of Iranian students led by Islamic fundamentalists seized the US embassy, taking 66 Americans hostage, 52 of whom would be held for 444 days. With this act, the Iranian Islamic Revolution filled the vacuum of power left after the abdication of the shah some 10 months earlier, and at the same time declared war on America, a war that it has continued to wage for three decades.

The full import of this event, even now, is not clear to many. The failure to respond forcefully and quickly to this affront to U.S. citizens damaged our prestige and emboldened our enemies - as a German newspaper at the time prophesied: “[A] Lilliputian is binding a giant. Such an example invites followers.

So much was obvious at the time. Less apparent, however, was the fact that the Iranian Revolution was the first major offensive of the modern jihad against the infidel West.

Ayatollah Khomeini was clear about his jihadist intentions — “Our people is the people of blood and our school is the school of Jihad.’ ‘We will export our revolution to the world. Until the cry ‘There is no God but God’ resounds over the whole world, there will be struggle.”

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 18, 2010 at 1:25 pm Link to this comment

II

Rico,

Iran’s war against America drew blood in 1983 when jihadists in Beirut bombed the American embassy, killing 17. Five months later a suicide-bomber destroyed the barracks of US Marines sent as “peace-keepers” into the Lebanese inferno. The attack killed 241 military personnel, the grim climax of a summer of relentless assaults on the Marines’ positions.

Reagan’s response to this murder of U.S. troops was as pusillanimous as had been Carter’s to the embassy takeover. While the French and Israelis strafed and bombed the terrorist camps in the Bekaa Valley in retaliation for attacks on their forces, the American troops “left in a rush,” Secretary of State at the time George Shultz wrote in his memoirs, “amid ridicule from the French and utter disappointment and despair from the Lebanese.”

Given this record of retreat in the face of Iranian aggression, we should not be surprised that jihadist outfits like al Qaeda have been emboldened into serially attacking our interests and murdering our citizens. Osama bin Laden’s sermons to his jihadist trainees continually referenced America’s retreat from Vietnam and Beirut as signs of our spiritual exhaustion: “We can conclude that America is a superpower, with enormous military strength and vast economic power, but that all this is built on foundations of straw. So it is possible to target those foundations and focus on their weakest points which, even if you strike only one-tenth of them, then the whole edifice will totter and sway, and relinquish its unjust leadership of the world.” For the jihadists, Iran had led the way in demonstrating the spiritual purity will always trump material power, as Kohmeini had instructed: “Victory is not achieved by swords; it can be achieved only by blood. Victory is not achieved by large populations; it is achieved by strength of faith.”

Thirty years ago Iran declared war on the U.S. and for for 30 years has stained its hands with American blood and served as an inspiration and source of support for other jihadists. Iran continues to arm, train, and support the terrorists killing American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and those threatening our allies.

In November 2001, bin Laden said, “This war is fundamentally religious. Under no circumstances should we forget this enmity between us and the infidels. For, the enmity is based on creed.” Khomeini had said much the same thing in November 1979: “The Muslims must rise up in this struggle, which is more a struggle between unbelievers and Islam than one between Iran and America: between all unbelievers and the Muslims. The Muslims must rise up and triumph in this struggle.”

Failing to understand the traditionalist religious roots of jihadist terror, we waste time on “outreach” and other “hearts and minds” tactics that in the end have nothing to do with why the Islamists want to kill us. This dismissal of the Islamic ideology that ignited the Iranian revolution and fuels the mullahcracy in Iran continues to this day, where the regime is courted with the diplomatic carrots and sticks and non-lethal sanctions more useful in relations between secular states and their leaders, for whom sheer survival and enjoyment of power, not obedience to God, are the highest goods. But misunderstanding the enemy or distorting his spiritual motives will not win the long war that for America began in November of 1979. As long as we fail to take seriously the traditional Islamic foundations of jihadist terror, all our efforts will be nothing more than the sound of dogs barking while the jihadist caravan moves on.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 18, 2010 at 1:20 pm Link to this comment

Rico,

It can be no more obvious. There are many people who steadfastly believe that representative forms of government, an independent judiciary and a free and open market, with individuals free to choose as they wish are a detriment and a danger to the globe.  Manchild (ardee), diamond and basho are just such individuals. 

That roughly 96% out of six billion people disagree with them forces these individuals to imagine an alternative reality. A reality that conjures up shadowy entities in control of the, much less intelligent, masses.  How else to explain why a mere 4% of the globe are able to fathom the bogeymen and phantoms we hear so much about in these threads. - Since only 4% of the population are able to see “the truth”, so to speak,  it must be some nefarious form of mind control effecting everyone but a small few “sane” and truly exceptional human beings.

-

What, you ask, has gotten into ardee?

Manchild is aware that I no longer see his rants.  I only see when others quote him or the various replies to his comments.

I can tell you this in hopes that it helps you to understand.  Manchild was not responding to your posts alone.  He was childishly attempting to reply to mine also.  You simply got caught in the middle.

Sorry about that.


BTW:  Taliban leaders never offered to turn bin Laden over to the Bush Administration.  The, so-called, offer was to turn bin Laden over to a third Muslim nation if the U.S. President agreed to terms they knew in advance the U.S. could never agree to.  In light of the fact that many similar offers were made and rescinded by the Taliban numerous times during the Clinton administration, nobody, and I repeat nobody, took these “offers” seriously.  Rightly so.

There was no real offer to hand bin Laden over to anyone.  I caution you not to get caught up in Manchild’s brilliant fantasies.  Fantasies which always places the United States, a representative form of government, beneath her enemies.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 18, 2010 at 10:08 am Link to this comment

ardee:

“simple, remove the reasons for their hatred of the imperialist west.”

What are those reasons? Have you ever listened to bin Laden’s or Zawahiri’s rants? Given that their hatred is generated not only by our “imperialist military” (which in the real world, not your dream one, doesn’t exist) but by the multiple “imperialisms” of our freedom to choose atheism, our wealth, our free markets, our support for Israel, our pop culture, our moral decadence, our personal freedom, our treatment of women, our rule of law.

Sounds like what you’re saying is, “Remove Western Culture”. Simple.

Or is it, in your view, just our killing spree that pisses them off?  Do you really believe that if the US military didn’t exist, AQ wouldn’t exist? Do you really believe it’s that simple? Do you really believe that if the West simply disarmed, AQ and the Taliban would end their jihad?

Your elevated “gorge”, whatever that is, is nothing more than a symptom, not of my imbecility, but of your inability to square the reality of the way the world really works with your fantasies about how you think it works.

And you’re right, the Taliban did try to dish OBL to Bush. It was the Tunisians, I think, or one of those Maghreb countries who tried to give him to Clinton back in the ‘90s, and Clinton refused.

PS. Nice looking bike.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 18, 2010 at 8:26 am Link to this comment

basho,

Your last post was telling.  Out of pure frustration and petulance you resorted to three paragraphs of redundant personal attacks which had nothing, whatsoever, to do with the subject at hand. 

I take from this you’ve given up dialog for confrontation.  Precisely what you appear to rail against in others.  Perhaps you may think about that for a minute or two during you day.

Don’t talk peace for others while relying so quickly and easily on confrontation yourself.

Report this

By ardee, November 18, 2010 at 6:22 am Link to this comment

rico, suave, November 17 at 11:46 pm

Do you really believe a post that continues to show your abysmal ignorance of your subject brings you anything good? Clinton’s watch? Hey fool, we weren’t interested in prosecuting bin Laden until AFTER 9/11, don’t drink and post, it makes you even more foolish than bloodthirsty.

If you believe that these wars are for anything but profit then you deserve the calumnies heaped upon you. Your efforts were not much to begin with and they have continued to deteriorate.

As to “what happened” to me, my gorge rises up in direct proportion to your imbecility…enough said for now.

Oh, as to how to “contain” AlQaeda, simple, remove the reasons for their hatred of the imperialist west. Killing innocents contains them not one iota, it has made them stronger in fact,more diversified , and harder to contain. But then, a bloodthirsty bastard like you hasn’t a real clue in the first place.

You typify the term, “Ugly American”.

Report this
basho's avatar

By basho, November 18, 2010 at 3:48 am Link to this comment

GRYM:

“LOL…why ask a question if you’re going to ignore the answer.  You didn’t ask about U.S. foreign policy in regards to Afghanistan.  You asked my opinion on what would ‘win (my) heart and mind’.”

that’s correct. i was more interested in your opinion than the claptrap that comes out of washington. if i had wanted to know what the government’s opinion was i would not have to ask you for it.

what i got for an answer from you was a mindless regurgitation of the conventional claptrap coming out of washington. your opinion re-echoes u.s. foreign policy in afghanistan.

my challenge to your answer and your subsequent response to it only show me that you have swallowed the claptrap ‘hook, line and sinker’. in other words you have no opinion until someone gives you one. now that’s a LOL.

Report this

By diamond, November 18, 2010 at 2:26 am Link to this comment

Wrong, Rico. They offered up bin Laden after 9/11 IF the United States could prove he had anything to do with 9/11. The United States never took them up on that offer. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be because, as Robert Mueller head of the FBI, has stated, that there is no evidence that bin Laden had anything to do with it and the Bush administration (naturally enough, given their own involvement) knew that perfectly well. Bin Laden was in the American hospital in Dubai a couple of days before 9/11 being treated by American doctors for his kidney complaint and the local head of the CIA came and sat at his bedside talking with him for some time. Is this really how the CIA should treat a man they allege issued a Fatwa against the United States and who they claim is an enemy of the United States? Not in any reality I’m aware of. The truth is that bin Laden is Goldstein and Goldstein is largely a myth used for military and intelligence purposes.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 17, 2010 at 6:46 pm Link to this comment

ardee:

What the hell has happened to you?

All I asked was for someone to step up and suggest how we could “contain” AQ. How in the world does that make me a bloodthirsty bastard?

I won’t argue chicken and egg. In fact, if it makes you happy, I’ll concede that the US created AQ and if the US never existed, neither would AQ. And I couldn’t agree more- “we” in fact do not contain AQ. Happy?

And I think the Taliban offered up bin Laden on Clinton’s watch, not Bush’s.

“But that would not have made Bush’s Unitary Executive scheme obtainable, nor would it have served the MIC’s insatiable desire for more and more profits.” Oh, I see. So Bush took a poll of the MIC (whoever they are) and they said, “Don’t take him! It’ll cut into our profit margin!” Are you insane??? And what’s a Unitary Executive?

Now. For the fifth time, how do we “contain” AQ?

If all you can come up with is another juvenile ad hominem and some more tinfoil hat theories, then we’re done here.

I really thought you were more sober than that.

Report this

By ardee, November 17, 2010 at 6:29 pm Link to this comment

rico, suave, November 17 at 1:41 pm Link to this comment

Let’s get back to Sir David’s proposition-

How do we “contain” al Qaeda?

That you are an apparently bloodthirsty bastard seems more and more obvious, so sad for you. “We” in fact, do not contain AlQaeda, we are the cause of their being.

That you will never understand that simple fact is a part of what makes you such a bloodthirsty bastard. I would remind you, to no avail I know, that the Taliban offered up bin Laden with a few small conditions, easily met. But that would not have made Bush’s Unitary Executive scheme obtainable, nor would it have served the MIC’s insatiable desire for more and more profits.

You are, indeed, a bloodthirsty bastard, and that is less a curse that a sorrowful and pitiable conclusion.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 17, 2010 at 4:54 pm Link to this comment

GRYM:

I agree of course, but I was hoping to get an answer from someone who thinks killing is never necessary, especially by the US, and who thinks conditions can be created whereby AQ is willing to be peacefully “contained”.

I think Sir David might have in mind some acceptable number of subway, airplane and suicide bombings per year acting as some sort of pressure relief valve, sort of what the Israelis have decided to put up with, like a low grade headache not bad enough to make you reach for the Advil, or Hellfire missile. So far, we haven’t decided to be like the Israelis.

Report this

By diamond, November 17, 2010 at 4:36 pm Link to this comment

“Afghanistan’s people are trapped between powerful enemies, according to Malalai Joya, an outspoken member of the Afghan parliament.

Ms Joya named those “enemies” as Nato forces who bomb from the sky, the resurgent Islamists of the Taliban, and the country’s “warlords”.

Speaking to anti-war activists in London she insisted Afghans were capable of governing themselves.

But she dismissed next month’s presidential election as a “deception”.

Ms Joya technically remains an MP, but has been suspended since 2007, on charges of insulting the parliament after she compared it to a zoo.

She has been called “the bravest woman in Afghanistan”, and is well known for her opposition both to the Taliban and to the warlords who backed the American-led campaign to overthrow the Taliban in 2001.

She says she has survived five assassination attempts.

In her address to supporters of the UK’s Stop the War Coalition in London, Ms Joya was scathing about Nato operations in Afghanistan. She said the actions of Nato were serving only to further the misery of ordinary Afghan people.”

Read more: http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/07/25/afghan-woman-mp-lists-enemies.html#ixzz15ZXaY3XK

No, not insane, GRYM, only accurate, unlike you. And there you go again, defending the Karzai government and refusing to believe a woman who was actually in the parliament when she says she has survived five assassination attempts at the hands of the criminals who run Afghanistan. As for your pitiful and irrelevant questions about bin Laden.

1. Why would I want to listen to a man who is probably dead and therefore redundant to Afghanistan’s future.

2. If you mean those videos put out by the intelligence services which feature men with black beards who are not bin Laden, it’s kinda hard to know exactly what they want or indeed how much they paid them but again, how are they relevant to Afghanistan’s future?

And it’s certainly discouraging to say the least when you read things like this:

‘On December 20, 2001, German TV channel “Das Erste” broadcast its analysis of the White House’s translation of the (December 13th 2001, alleged bin Laden) videotape. On the program “Monitor”, two independent translators and an expert on oriental studies found the White House’s translation to be both inaccurate and manipulative, stating, “At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic” and that the words used that indicate foreknowledge can not be heard at all in the original Arabic.’ (Wikipedia)

The long and short of what you’re telling your soulmate Rico is, ‘We’re just going to have to go on killing the bastards until there’s none of them left.’ Somehow I don’t think even Ms. Joya who is no friend of either side would think that was a rational plan. And don’t forget those warlords are drug lords too and since Karzai (and the CIA) took power, the drug trade has exploded in Afghanistan which now supplies most of the heroin coming into America and Europe. Members of the Afghan parliament are heavily involved in the drug trade and build large Mansions in Kabul which they rent to foreigners (from Nato and other organizations) since no ordinary Afghan could ever afford their prices.

As Joya has pointed out: you don’t build democracy with white phosphorous bombs, cluster bombs and drones.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 17, 2010 at 10:18 am Link to this comment

Rico, - “How do we “contain” al Qaeda?”

-

Containment can be achieved by the following. - begging your pardon for repeating myself.

Victory is most easily obtained by ending the enemy’s ability to resist — and by offering him an alternative future that might appear better than the past. We may not like to think all of that entails killing those who wish to kill us, but it does, always has, and tragically always will — until the nature of man himself changes.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 17, 2010 at 10:08 am Link to this comment

diamond,

I can’t help but notice that you, yet again, have been unable to answer some truly fundamental questions. - I understand that Mr. Ahmed did not address these questions, however, I would like to press once again so that we can all understand where your thinking has lead you.

1. Have you ever listened to bin Laden? 
2. Who does he claim to be and what does he claim his goals to be?

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 17, 2010 at 10:00 am Link to this comment

Basho, - “in other words, the West is in this war to further women’s rights. this is probably the first time in recorded history that a war has been fought over women’s rights.’

-

LOL…why ask a question if you’re going to ignore the answer.  You didn’t ask about U.S. foreign policy in regards to Afghanistan.  You asked my opinion on what would ‘win (my) heart and mind’.

Good luck to you also.

P.S. The U.S. is not the world’s aggressor. - I believe we should avoid creating a situation where one does not exist.  It seems to me, most especially while at war, such creations get innocent people killed.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 17, 2010 at 8:41 am Link to this comment

Let’s get back to Sir David’s proposition-

How do we “contain” al Qaeda?

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 17, 2010 at 8:35 am Link to this comment

diamond:

Except that in a Taliban government, there would be no female MPs.

And show me one quote of mine in any post at any time where I “fanatically” or even tepidly defend the Karzai government. Desiring the defeat of the Taliban and AQ is not the same as desiring the success of the Karzai government, except in the stunted logic of your make believe world.

“They” switched off her mike, threw things, threatened her, chased her out of the building and blew up a bridge trying to kill her. Who’s this “they”? Members of Parliament? BLEW UP A BRIDGE!!!??? Are you insane???

Where do you get this shit, diamond?

Report this
basho's avatar

By basho, November 17, 2010 at 8:29 am Link to this comment

GRYM:

“I’m not sure what your looking for here.  I thought my last two replies made my answers so very clear. “

i guess i’m a little slow reading between the lines. smile

“1. Would you be an insurgent? - In Afghanistan?  Against NATO?  Certainly not.”

the questions were prefaced by something to the effect ‘if the aggressor, aggress-ed your country’.

“2. What would ‘win your heart and mind’? - The end of anything which looks like the Taliban government and an education for my Daughters and Nieces. ...”

in other words, the West is in this war to further women’s rights. this is probably the first time in recorded history that a war has been fought over women’s rights.

“3. What would you think about the security of your family in the hands of the aggressor? - What aggressor?  The Taliban?  ...”

what aggressor? the Western military.

“4. What would you consider an improvement to the economy? water? sewage?, electricity? that were there before the aggression. - I’m not understanding the question.”

no problem. my point was; there was an economy, there was infrastructure before the country was overrun etc etc

“Question:  I’m curious.  Which answer(s) were you not already aware of after my previous two replies?”

the answers you’ve posted above. wink
..................................
in the end result, whatever positions u and i hold are moot. our influence, if we have any, is limited to a very small circle of like minded people.

war is a great diversion. having someone to hate keeps the masses occupied. there is always someone to hate for religious, racial, political, etc reasons. history is resplendent with examples.

and as history further points out - it all comes apart at the seams.

the grand coalition is disintegrating. the brits being the most recent to beat a retreat to the safety of their own borders.

the u.s. is becoming more isolated from its neighbors/‘allies’. the EU, BRIC, ASEAN et al are becoming stronger/bolder. it will be a multi-polar world with or without the u.s. although, i think the rest of the world would like the u.s. to be a part of it.

financially, the u.s. is bankrupt printing billions of $$ to buy up its own debt. local banks are failing daily (140+ in 2010). by many measures, other than the ‘official’, it is worse off than the PIIGS. the one saving grace being that the $ is still seen as the worlds reserve currency, so far.

foreign policy is bankrupt. the world is letting the u.s. bleed to death, physically, financially and morally. the u.s.‘s influence over world events is diminishing daily as evidenced in the behavior of the n. koreans, s. americans, china, germany, israel et al. failures at the G20 and korean trade agreement are recent examples.

militarily, it is still a major threat. but that will also come apart as the money runs out, its army is exhausted or re-based in the homeland to protect the powers that be.

domestic policies are bankrupt, unemployment at 40% in many locales. 30+ states are bankrupt. looking at recent film clips of some of the cities that were once vibrant and productive one has to remind oneself that this is not some 3rd world country. this is the u.s. 

it has outsourced its mfg. base. it’s infrastructure is falling apart. the physical health of its citizens is in a downward spiral. (2007 - 191 countries surveyed, u.s. - 37)

of course, i understand this is difficult to see given the propaganda being spouted from the entrenched mass media.

there is no organized dissent. and even if there was patriot acts 1&2 + other ‘acts’ will stifle that. all the pieces are in place should the citizens decide to move on the establishment.

it doesn’t matter if its the red or the blue that come into office. they all drink out of the same bowl. hate groups are having a hard time keeping up with membership requests.

the list is endless. the signs are ominous.

fantasy? time will tell.

i wish you the best. smile

Report this

By diamond, November 17, 2010 at 12:04 am Link to this comment

‘Let’s move on’. To where, Rico? Your caravan is already hopelessly lost and if you go any further in the direction you’re going in, you’ll end up in Wonderland -which is where most of the commentary on Afghanistan comes from. I heard a woman member of the Afghan parliament on the radio this morning. She stood up in Parliament and told America’s handpicked government of drug lords and rapists that they should all be sent to the Hague for war crimes. Needless to say they didn’t ‘agree’. They switched off her microphone, threatened her with rape and threw water bottles at her. Then they threw her out of her seat, illegally, since she was actually elected, unlike Karzai who is now the George W. Bush of Afghanistan, took her diplomatic passport and later set a bomb on a bridge they knew her car would be crossing. Fortunately it exploded before her car got there. Just bear in mind that this is the government Americans are dying to keep in power. Just bear in mind that this is the government that GRYM and Rico are defending so fanatically. Drug lords and rapists and corrupt officials who didn’t even win the last election but are still the government. Let’s move on, indeed. I can see why you’d want to.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 16, 2010 at 8:54 pm Link to this comment

Rico,

I have been fascinated over the last six year in that not one individual on this Web space has been able to answer, what should be, some truly fundamental questions regarding so-called al Qaeda types, or “Bin Ladens”.  Although I’ve seen hundreds of opinions.

- Who does Osama bin Laden claim to be and what does he claim his goals to be?

Dr. Zawahiri and Sayyid Nasrallah are of more concern to me presently, however, it’s still interesting that not one person on this site has, in the past six years, tackled those questions head on.  Usually the questions are met with some form or flavor of a Western conspiracy.  Or how U.S. aggression is the real issue.  Anything but a serious look at those who claim to be enemies of open liberal Democracies and moderate Arabs.

Most of all, Rico, be sure to find ways to Blame America First! wink

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 16, 2010 at 7:46 pm Link to this comment

GRYM:

Seems like we’re dealing only with diamond and ardee. As GWB would say, “Small ball.” Let’s move on.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 16, 2010 at 7:40 pm Link to this comment

Sir David’s (sorry for “Sir Richard” earlier) lament that “AQ can never be completely defeated” is as true as “Islam can never be completely defeated.” I don’t care what anyone else says on this subject- AQ and militant Islam cannot be separated. As long as this struggle has a religious component, the war will go on. AQ is the army of Islam. Those bastards will try to kill us, and us bastards will try to kill them. It won’t end soon and it won’t end pretty.

I ask Sir David- How can you “contain” a religious conviction, no, a fanatacism?

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 16, 2010 at 7:22 pm Link to this comment

rico, “Sorry, no. I want to sleep at night.”


LOL…..

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 16, 2010 at 7:17 pm Link to this comment

Diamond, - “And I stand by the statement that the intelligence services are still running ‘terrorists’ all over the world for their own nefarious purposes. “

-

I understand.  You believe in a global conspiracy involving, at the minimum, tens of thousands of individuals all working in concert and keeping themselves largely hidden from view.

We disagree.  In fact I’m forced to agree with Osama bin Laden on this issue.  He too appears to disagree with how you’ve characterize him and his cause.

Have you ever listened to bin Laden?  Who does he claim to be and what does he claim his goals are?  Perhaps we can agree on that?

-

Lose. - Thank you

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 16, 2010 at 6:57 pm Link to this comment

GRYM:

Sorry, no. I want to sleep at night.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 16, 2010 at 6:52 pm Link to this comment

diamond:

It’s painful to respond to you- it’s like chewing tinfoil, if you get my drift.

Would you have been happy if we attacked Saudi Arabia, home of most of the hijackers? Oh, wait, there never were any “purported” hijackings, the Towers were dropped by the CIA with implanted explosives and the Pentagon was hit by a Navy missile- sorry.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 16, 2010 at 6:46 pm Link to this comment

rico,

Your November/16 11:30pm makes it obviously you are passionate about saving lives. 

Have you ever studied the accumulative writings, decrees and teaching of Zawahiri, Nasrallah and/or bin Laden?

Report this

By diamond, November 16, 2010 at 6:44 pm Link to this comment

Ah, you and GRYM, Rico. As J.B. Priestly wrote: ‘The evil always support each other. It’s their great strength.’ Don’t you ever ask yourself, Rico, why not one Afghan citizen is listed among the purported terrorists and why the head of the FBI has stated openly that there’s no evidence whatsoever that Osama bin Laden or those named as hijackers had anything to do with 9/11? Now, why would he say that: is he a ‘terrorist’ too? If you put the official case for what happened on 9/11 into court it would be laughed out of court - which is why they haven’t and they won’t.

Report this

By diamond, November 16, 2010 at 6:38 pm Link to this comment

“Chicken or egg ardee? 9/11 occurred BEFORE our invasion/”

Chicken: false flag operation carried out.

Egg: invasion of Afghanistan so that it can be ‘pacified’ and BP/Unocal/Delta’s oil and gas pipeline can be built.

Now they’re estimating 2014 as the year they will have ‘pacified’ Afghanistan but the UK general clearly doesn’t share their belief that this year will be any different. When you’re in a hole it’s a good idea to stop digging. Failure might not be an option but when it’s a reality you have to face the facts - and the music.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 16, 2010 at 6:32 pm Link to this comment

GRYM:

I have diamond’s mailing address, if you want to send him a fresh roll of aluminum foil for his hats.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 16, 2010 at 6:30 pm Link to this comment

ardee:

“It is not the Taliban or AlQaeda that flies drones over weddings killing everyone in sight.”

I thought you were a serious fellow, but you’re not. Is that the mission of drones? To destroy wedding parties? Really?? Are you insane? You redefine “facile”.

“Nor did they ask us to enter their nation and commence said slaughter”.

And the Japanese people didn’t ask us to bomb Tokyo either after Pearl Harbor. And the German people didn’t ask us to bomb Berlin either. What’s your point?

“[my] absolutely remarkable imbecility about them obligated to cease killing us when it is we who invaded them.”

Chicken or egg ardee? 9/11 occurred BEFORE our invasion.

When I hear an audio tape from bin Laden saying he’ll stop trying to blow up airplanes (filled with people returning from wedding parties?) then I’ll be all about being on your side of the equation.

Why is it that you ignore AQ’s attempted atrocities while foaming like a rabid dog over our alleged ones? Wedding parties? Please. You’re flailing.

Report this

By diamond, November 16, 2010 at 6:28 pm Link to this comment

I’m not going to get involved in your ‘truth is subjective’ idiocy GRYM. The truth is the truth and if you don’t think so, try running into a wall and see if you can ‘disagree’ that it exists.

“At the risk of being accused of puffery - I’ve done more than simply read Mr. Ahmed’s book.  The same for dozens of other books on this particular subject.  I’ve studied these publication at length. I’ve also studied global intelligence reports and the actions of global players spanning the last 30 years.”

So you admit you’re an analyst? Obviously someone like you would not agree with Ahmed’s conclusions, even though they are backed up in every instance by evidence, something you don’t have to support a single one of your statements. If you can’t understand what Ahmed is saying then you don’t know how to do research and reach conclusions from that research. The alternative is that you know perfectly well he’s right and all the people who said these things are right but you can’t admit it because your job is to deny, deny, deny. Plausible deniability they call it. But anyone who’s read Ahmed’s book doesn’t find anything you’re saying plausible. And do you honestly believe you’re the only one who has read dozens of books on this subject? I started reading before I went to school and I haven’t stopped since. I can read just as well as you, and I do read - with intent.

“Mr. Ahmed looses sight of the world at large and puts a terrific focus on the United States and Britain.  He appears unaware that Russia, China, France, and several dozen Muslim nations are battling the same self-described enemies.

Mr. Ahmed’s investigation of the London bombers lacks fundamental investigative disciplines.”

It’s not ‘looses’ it’s ‘loses’ and in any case that’s untrue. Ahmed loses sight of nothing: his investigation of the London bombings is gold standard in terms of detail, accuracy and common sense. Another disgraceful episode in the life of the intelligence services.

Russia: the FSB carried out bombings of apartment buildings in Moscow in 1999 so that they could invade Chechnya, a Muslim country. They carried a grudge because they lost a war with Chechnya early in the nineties and also wanted to boost funding of the army and the FSB. These bombings led to Putin (former head of the KGB) rising to power. The war crimes the Russian state then perpetrated in Chechnya are among the worst ever committed anywhere in the world. These matters are what led to the deaths of Alexander Litvinenko (former FSB and author of ‘Blowing up Russia’) and Anna Politskovskaya, a journalist who was writing a book on the war in Chechnya. The problem is the FSB and Putin, not the Chechens.

China: China’s persecution of its Muslim Uighur minority is condemned from one side of the world to the other. The problem is the Chinese government and its well known intolerance for difference and any form of dissent.

France: the 1995 bombings of Paris railways are dealt with in Ahmed’s book: in an interview with John Sweeney, a whistleblower (Algerian military) confirmed that the ‘two bombs that killed eight and wounded 143 in Paris in 1995 were planted at the instigation of the Algerian junta’. The purpose was to turn French public opinion against the Islamists. This whistleblower known as ‘Hakim’ was later murdered by the intelligence services in Algeria.
The orchestration of these bombings by Algerian intelligence “is no longer disputable. The whole process has been documented in ‘France-Algeria: Crimes and Lies of the State’” by respected French journalists Lounis Aggoun and Jean Baptiste Rivoire
(pp. 225-227, ‘The London Bombings’).

And I stand by the statement that the intelligence services are still running ‘terrorists’ all over the world for their own nefarious purposes.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 16, 2010 at 6:14 pm Link to this comment

ardee:

And by the way, I also prefer academia to killing and mayhem, but that’s not the choice al Qaeda is giving us is it? If AQ would only acquiesce in being “contained” we could put down our guns, stop the body scans and wire taps and stop worrying about missing so many episodes of American Idol.

Report this

By ardee, November 16, 2010 at 6:13 pm Link to this comment

rico, suave, November 16 at 10:57 pm

The real question quickly becomes whether or not you believe the absurdities of what you post. It is not the Taliban or AlQaeda that flies drones over weddings killing everyone in sight. Nor did they ask us to enter their nation and commence said slaughter, thus making your absolutely remarkable imbecility about them obligated to cease killing us when it is we who invaded them.

One does not have to support either Taliban or AlQaeda to be completely abhorrent of your world views. Youy really are a sad little fellow, callous and cold, stupid and bloodthirsty.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 16, 2010 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment

ardee:

au contraire mon frere- Al Qaeda’s is the vision of a world in which continued slaughter is the only solution. What is al Qaeda if not a killing machine? But, you’ll say, what is the US Army if not a killing machine? Precisely. I say, Go Army! Do your job!

Are you really characterizing what’s going on in Afghanistan as genocide?? Are you drunk, ardee? And what does Israel have to do with this?

I agree that our killing them is good for their recruiting. Sort of like how the Marine and Army recruiting offices were jammed here after 9/11. So why aren’t you applying the same logic to them? Maybe if they stop trying to kill us, we’ll leave them alone.

Here’s what happens- we go into a village and make nice with the locals, who sometimes make the mistake of giving us the time of day. We leave the village. The Taliban (who, by the way, are not part of Sir Richard’s concern, so I wonder why you brought them into the discussion) comes into the village and kills the locals for collaborating with us. When an observer asks the survivors of the village whom they prefer, the Taliban or the US, what do you think they’re going to say? Don’t mistake being feared with being popular.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 16, 2010 at 5:45 pm Link to this comment

baso,  “no answer is an answer”

I’m not sure what your looking for here.  I thought my last two replies made my answers so very clear. 

-

1. Would you be an insurgent? - In Afghanistan?  Against NATO?  Certainly not.

2. What would ‘win your heart and mind’? - The end of anything which looks like the Taliban government and an education for my Daughters and Nieces.  A job or further education for my wife.  Seeing the number of woman working in government which we see today.  All of which was not possible prior to 2002.

3. What would you think about the security of your family in the hands of the aggressor? - What aggressor?  The Taliban?  I would be forever in fear of my family’s security.  Particularly in my absence.  I would be in a great deal of pain knowing my Grandchildren could be severely beaten for listening to music or learning the sciences.

4. What would you consider an improvement to the economy? water? sewage?, electricity? that were there before the aggression. - I’m not understanding the question.

Question:  I’m curious.  Which answer(s) were you not already aware of after my previous two replies?

Report this

By ardee, November 16, 2010 at 5:12 pm Link to this comment

rico, suave, November 16 at 3:15 pm

[i[Sir Richard would make a terrific academic, living as he does in the world of “I wish” and completely out of touch with the nastiness of the real world.

The only way to contain them is to kill them.

I think I prefer Sir Richard’s academia to your abomination of a world vision in which continued slaughter is your solution. Killing is making the Taliban more popular in Afghanistan than ever they were in charge of that land.

If you cannot think of a solution that doesnt involve genocide perhaps you might move to Israel.

Report this

By Michael David Mahoney, November 16, 2010 at 4:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Finally an insightful and intelligent comment from a soldier with a brain. I’m sure glad this guy, who appears to have a grasp of reality, is in charge.

Report this
basho's avatar

By basho, November 16, 2010 at 1:24 pm Link to this comment

GRYM:

“If you look again you’ll see I did answer your questions.  I do not believe the U.S. is one of the worlds aggressors.  You can apply that firm and passionate belief to each of your questions. “

no answer is an answer.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, November 16, 2010 at 10:15 am Link to this comment

Ok. Let’s “contain” al Qaeda. The goal presumably would be to prevent them from further harming us. Is the US Patriot Act a “containment” strategy?

Where, physically, do we contain them? Do we build a wall around them? Al Qaeda is not a political entity like the USSR, or a formal military like the Russian Army. “Containing” al Qaeda physically would be as easy as “containing” all people with type B+ blood.

How, practically speaking, do we contain them? How do you “contain” Osama bin Laden? Do we take their passports away from them? Do we make them register somewhere? Void their credit cards and close their bank accounts? You can’t restrict a private citizen like that, even if you know he might be up to no good some day soon. That’s discrimination and denies habeas corpus and we can’t have that! And if we wait for him to prove he needs to be contained, then containment has failed.

For containment to work, Sir Richard has to believe that al Qaeda is physically concentrated and outwardly identifiable by, what, religion? Or ethnicity? Or nationality? But then that’s stereotyping and racism, so we can’t have that!

Sir Richard would make a terrific academic, living as he does in the world of “I wish” and completely out of touch with the nastiness of the real world.

The only way to contain them is to kill them.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 16, 2010 at 10:10 am Link to this comment

diamond,

At the risk of being accused of puffery - I’ve done more than simply read Mr. Ahmed’s book.  The same for dozens of other books on this particular subject.  I’ve studied these publication at length. I’ve also studied global intelligence reports and the actions of global players spanning the last 30 years.

I simply do not agree with Mr. Ahmed’s conclusions.

Mr. Ahmed looses sight of the world at large and puts a terrific focus on the United States and Britain.  He appears unaware that Russia, China, France, and several dozen Muslim nations are battling the same self-described enemies.

Mr. Ahmed’s investigation of the London bombers lacks fundamental investigative disciplines.

-

None of what I’ve written here should be taken as personal against yourself.  Writing that my point of view is, as you say, “fantasy” is rather petty and small.  We simply disagree.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 16, 2010 at 9:33 am Link to this comment

basho,

LOL…yes DESCENT.  Oops.

i don’t presume to know what Dr. Z. believes, do you?”

Yes, I believe I do.  I’ve listened intently to the many opinions and goals from Dr. Zawahiri and others.  If one wishes to understand what an self-described enemy of the West and non-aligned Muslim nations believes in, what their goals are, listening would be helpful.

Now would you give me your opinion on the questions posed in the last post.”

If you look again you’ll see I did answer your questions.  I do not believe the U.S. is one of the worlds aggressors.  You can apply that firm and passionate belief to each of your questions.

Report this
basho's avatar

By basho, November 16, 2010 at 5:04 am Link to this comment

GRYM:

“For example; in my opinion Saddam Hussein was the single most dangerous individual on the globe.”

- everyone is entitled to an opinion. smile

“His ascent from power likely saved millions of lives.”

- ascent = movement upward from a lower to a higher state, degree, grade,
- likely = probable
???

“I also know well that there are those on the planet who wish to kill as many people as possible as a tactic to achieve a very specific goal. - Ayman Zawahiri is one such individual.”

-the list is quite long. personally i would have started with the movers and shakers of the military-industrial complex that governs the u.s.

“So that we know we’re talking about the same issues, can you tell me what Dr. Zawahiri states his goals to be? - I’m not asking what you may believe.  I’m asking what Dr. Zawahiri believes.”

-i don’t presume to know what Dr. Z. believes, do you?

“You may see things differently.  I believe if we understand the goals of the, self-described, enemy we can defend against them as they present themselves.”

- it would also be important to know the goals of the aggressor nation.

“Also, I do not believe the United States is the world’s aggressor.  I fear we will disagree in that too. “

- everyone is entitled to an opinion. smile

Now would you give me your opinion on the questions posed in the last post.

-Would you be an insurgent?
-What would ‘win your heart and mind’?
-What would you think about the security of your family in the hands of the aggressor?
-What would you consider an improvement to the economy? water? sewage?, electricity? that were there before the aggression.

Report this

By diamond, November 16, 2010 at 4:36 am Link to this comment

“Clearly this cohabitation paradigm, in my view, changed dramatically after Sept. 2001.  - I’ve also never seen credible, verifiable, evidence that bin Laden has been employed by the CIA or any other Western intelligence agency in the past or present. Although we have seen it surmised countless times.”

No. It didn’t change after September 11 2001. That is pure fantasy on your part. The evidence that it continued and continues is carefully detailed by Mr. Ahmed. I have read the book cover to cover and been amazed and appalled at the facts, backed up by journalists, and whistle blowers from inside the CIA and other intelligence agencies and the so-called terror groups themselves that he has uncovered and documented. How you can admit that the intelligence agencies have cohabited, as you put it, with the very terrorists they are supposed to be fighting in the ‘war on terror’ and then turn around and dismiss this as if it’s not important or a thing of the past. It isn’t and the book proves it beyond any reasonable doubt.

If you want verifiable evidence that Osama bin Laden worked for the CIA here it is:

From Sibel Edmonds interview in ‘The American Conservative’ in an article entitled ‘Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds’, November 2009.

“EDMONDS: Okay. So these conversations, between 1997 and 2001, had to do with a Central Asia operation that involved bin Laden. Not once did anybody use the word “al-Qaeda.” It was always “mujahideen,” always “bin Laden” and, in fact, not “bin Laden” but “bin Ladens” plural. There were several bin Ladens who were going on private jets to Azerbaijan and Tajikistan. The Turkish ambassador in Azerbaijan worked with them.

There were bin Ladens, with the help of Pakistanis or Saudis, under our management. Marc Grossman was leading it, 100 percent, bringing people from East Turkestan into Kyrgyzstan, from Kyrgyzstan to Azerbaijan, from Azerbaijan some of them were being channeled to Chechnya, some of them were being channeled to Bosnia. From Turkey, they were putting all these bin Ladens on NATO planes. People and weapons went one way, drugs came back.”

From ‘Left Green Weekly, Norm Dixon, September 19th 2001:

“In Pakistan, recruits, money and equipment were distributed to the mujaheddin factions by an organisation known as Maktab al Khidamar (Office of Services — MAK).

MAK was a front for Pakistan’s CIA, the Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate. The ISI was the first recipient of the vast bulk of CIA and Saudi Arabian covert assistance for the Afghan contras. Bin Laden was one of three people who ran MAK. In 1989, he took overall charge of MAK”, (Dixon, 19th September 2001).

Any idea anyone might have that the CIA and al Qaida were kept rigorously apart and that the CIA’s role was strictly hands off, apart from funding and weapons would be wrong.

From the same publication:

“John Cooley, a former journalist with the ABC television network and author of Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, has revealed that Muslims recruited in the US for the mujaheddin were sent to Camp Peary, the CIA’s spy training camp in Virginia, where young Afghans, Arabs from Egypt and Jordan, and even some African-American “black Muslims” were taught “sabotage skills”.’ (Dixon, September 19th 2001).


Why do you think the British government is preparing to pay millions of dollars in compensation to its citizens who were tortured in Guantanamo Bay? They are making an out of court settlement because the intelligence services will do anything rather than let the documents they have on all of this be put into evidence in open court. That’s why they won’t put any of the so-called terrorists on trial in America either. It’s not about protecting Americans: it’s about protecting the intelligence services.

Report this

By GaryA, November 15, 2010 at 9:29 pm Link to this comment

That the Taliban may never be defeated is great news!

Why?

Because if there’s no end to our foe, there’ll be no
end to our need to continue warfare. And that means
more jobs for unemployed Americans - building weapons
and transport vehicles, uniforms and mess halls, to
say nothing of all the other, related material that’s
required fighting wars more than 10,000 miles away.

Unemployed Americans should cheer the news.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 15, 2010 at 8:30 pm Link to this comment

diamond, - “there is substantial and convincing evidence that al-Qaida is a tool of the intelligence services.”

-

Certainly men of good will can disagree.  I’ll be brief and say, I believe there is a difference between cohabitation vs collaboration with Islamist terrorists prior to the late 1990’s.  I see reams of evidence that numerous Western governments cohabited with Muslim extremists. - I think Mr. Ahmed misinterprets here. 

Clearly this cohabitation paradigm, in my view, changed dramatically after Sept. 2001.  - I’ve also never seen credible, verifiable, evidence that bin Laden has been employed by the CIA or any other Western intelligence agency in the past or present. Although we have seen it surmised countless times.

I think Nafeez Ahmed weaves together a great many intersecting events (some of them notable) in a fairly concise way.  Nonetheless I do disagree with his underlying conclusions. 

As an investigator of nearly 28 years I can opine unequivically that his “investigation” of the London bombers themselves is, well, unremarkable and almost all unsubstantiated. - Far too many suppositions between his facts.  In my opinion very few people amongst the intelligence communities would get behind Mr. Ahmed’s conclusions.

So, we will simply disagree. wink

Report this

By diamond, November 15, 2010 at 5:33 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man there is substantial and convincing evidence that al-Qaida is a tool of the intelligence services. The Taliban are not, they are Afghans who are resisting a western invasion of their country. The Taliban itself was originally created by the Pakistani secret service out of refugees who had fled into Pakistan from the war in Afghanistan but the Taliban rebelled against America and eventually burned the poppy fields. This is the real difference between the Taliban and al-Qaida.

From ‘The London Bombings:An Independent Inquiry’:

“According to former senior Indian intelligence official Bahukutumbi Raman, who has testified several times as an expert witness to the Committee on International Relations and Armed Service Committee of the US House of Representatives, Haji Ayub Afridi was released from a Pakistani jail ‘reportedly at the request of the CIA’, returning to Afghanistan on behalf of US designs.

Haji Ayub Afridi, a Pakistani ‘narcotics baron’ was a prized operative of the CIA in the 1980s and was a close associate in running the drug trade ‘with the blessing of the CIA’. These Pakistani heroin barons are reported to have played an important role in facilitating the induction of Hamid Karzai into the Pakistani areas to counter the Taliban in November 2001’ (p. 23, The London Bombings).

“in 1991 the first Bush administration had expressed support for a proposed oil pipeline from Azerbaijan across the Caucasus to Turkey. In the same year, during a Congressional ban on US arms sales to the country, three veteran US covert operations experts, Richard Secord, Heinie Aderholt and Ed Dearborn, all formerly active in Laos and later with Oliver North’s Contra operations, landed in Baku through the auspices of a company called Mega Oil. The three were career US Air Force Officers but had in the past been seconded to the CIA. In Azerbaijan they ‘engaged in military training’ and established an air transport network ‘which soon was picking up hundreds of Mujaheddin mercenaries in Afghanistan’. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar- who was still in receipt of US aid and an ally of Osama bin Laden- was recruiting Afghan Mujaheddin ‘to fight in Azerbaijan against Armenia and its Russian allies’ (p. 214, The London Bombings). 

At stake was an $8 billion dollar contract with a ‘consortium of western oil companies headed by BP. Part of the contract would be a pipeline which would, for the first time, not pass through Russian controlled territory when exporting oil from the Caspian Basin to Turkey’ (p. 215, The London Bombings).

The other firms that participated in BP’s oil consortium included America’s Unocal and the Saudi firms Delta Oil, and Nimir Petroleum. Hamid Karzai is a former consultant to Unocal. Furthermore:

“Al-Qaida affiliated GCPC Mujaheddin have been active in Chad, Niger, Nigeria, Mali and Mauritannia since 2003. As Agence France-Presse reported, masterminds of the Madrid bombings - who were also involved in planning of the 7th July attacks in London - operated from a ‘rear base’ of al-Qaida in North/West Africa.

The United States needs the GSPC terrorist threat to justify the extension of US hegemony to NW Africa.
Without the GSPC ‘the US has no legitimacy for its presence in the region’ (p.237, The London Bombings). The same applies to Afghanistan.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 15, 2010 at 4:58 pm Link to this comment

basho,

We have little in common in how we see the events of Iraq, Afghanistan and the many flavors of Islamic fanaticism.  For example; in my opinion Saddam Hussein was the single most dangerous individual on the globe.  His ascent from power likely saved millions of lives. - I also know well that there are those on the planet who wish to kill as many people as possible as a tactic to achieve a very specific goal. - Ayman Zawahiri is one such individual. 

So that we know we’re talking about the same issues, can you tell me what Dr. Zawahiri states his goals to be? - I’m not asking what you may believe.  I’m asking what Dr. Zawahiri believes.

-

You may see things differently.  I believe if we understand the goals of the, self-described, enemy we can defend against them as they present themselves.  Also, I do not believe the United States is the world’s aggressor.  I fear we will disagree in that too.

Report this
basho's avatar

By basho, November 15, 2010 at 2:01 pm Link to this comment

GRYM;
“Insurgencies, of course, are complex operations, but in general even they are not immune from eternal rules of war. Winning hearts and minds is essential; providing security for the populace is crucial; improving the economy is critical to securing the peace. But all that said, we cannot avoid the pesky truth that in war — any sort of war — killing enemy soldiers stops the violence.”

Def. (Wikipedia) An insurgency is a rebellion against a constituted authority (for example, an authority recognised as such by the United Nations) when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognised as belligerents.

Afghanistan and Iraq are/were recognized as countries. The U.S. attacked these people based on prefabricated grounds, ad nauseum. People are not ‘insurgents’ when they try to repel the aggression.

I am assuming that your “eternal rules of war” is that “killing enemy soldiers stops the violence”. That may be true in a computer game but it doesn’t work in real life. It is only in capitulation of one or the other of the parties, for whatever reasons, does the violence/war cease. The West is fighting a people and not a political construct. The West will never win theses wars, if, in fact, it ever thought it would.


“Winning hearts and minds is essential; providing security for the populace is crucial; improving the economy is critical to securing the peace.”

This is mind candy.

Prove it for yourself. Just imagine a country attacking your country under the same prefabrications the West has used and you took up arms.

-Would you be an insurgent?
-What would ‘win your heart and mind’?
-What would think about the security of your family in the hands of the aggressor?
-What you consider an improvement to the economy? water? sewage?, electricity? that were there before the aggression.

Report this
markulyseas's avatar

By markulyseas, November 15, 2010 at 10:21 am Link to this comment

When will we learn that we cannot fight and win against an entrenched ideology or for that matter an organized religion.

Thanks to the Head of the British army, Gen. Sir David Richards comments we can now begin the
unilateral withdrawal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan…yes?

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 15, 2010 at 9:01 am Link to this comment

Myths -v- Reality

1.  Al-Qaida does exist and is not a bunch of terrorists run by the CIA to justify America’s military hegemony.  That odd conspiracy would take a cast of tens of thousands all over the globe.  The theory is not well though out.
2.  It’s notable to remember that Gen. McCrystal basically stated the same as David Richards.  That is, there is no reason to kill every fighter to end the violence.
3.  Dr. Zawahiri, Usama bin Laden, suicide bombings and broadcast beheadings are far less popular amongst global Islam than in 2003-04.
4.  The popularity of the Taliban is at an all time low.  Very few in Afghanistan want the return of anything that looks like Afghanistan of 2000.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, November 15, 2010 at 9:01 am Link to this comment

Insurgencies, of course, are complex operations, but in general even they are not immune from eternal rules of war. Winning hearts and minds is essential; providing security for the populace is crucial; improving the economy is critical to securing the peace. But all that said, we cannot avoid the pesky truth that in war — any sort of war — killing enemy soldiers stops the violence.

Perhaps the most politically incorrect and Neanderthal of all thoughts would be that the American military’s long efforts in both Afghanistan and Iraq to kill or capture radical Islamists has contributed to the general safety inside the United States. Modern dogma insists that our presence in those two Muslim countries incited otherwise non-bellicose young Muslims to suddenly prefer violence and leave Saudi Arabia, Yemen, or Egypt to flock to kill the infidel invader.

A more tragic view would counter that there was always a large (though largely finite) number of radical jihadists who, even before 9/11, wished to kill Americans. They went to those two theaters, fought, died, and were therefore not able to conduct as many terrorist operations as they otherwise would have, and also provided a clear example to would-be followers not to emulate their various short careers. That may explain why in global polls the popularity both of bin Laden and of the tactic of suicide bombing plummeted in the Middle Eastern street — at precisely the time America was being battered in the elite international press for the Iraq War.

Even the most utopian and idealistic do not escape these tragic eternal laws of war. Barack Obama may think he can win over the radical Islamic world — or at least convince the more moderate Muslim community to reject jihadism — by means such as his Cairo speech, closing Guantanamo, trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York, or having General McChrystal emphatically assure the world that killing Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists will not secure Afghanistan.

Of course, such soft- and smart-power approaches have utility in a war so laden with symbolism in an age of globalized communications. But note that Obama has upped the number of combat troops in Afghanistan, and he vastly increased the frequency of Predator-drone assassination missions on the Pakistani border.

Indeed, even as Obama damns Guantanamo and tribunals, he has massively increased the number of targeted assassinations of suspected terrorists — the rationale presumably being either that we are safer with fewer jihadists alive, or that we are warning would-be jihadists that they will end up buried amid the debris of a mud-brick compound, or that it is much easier to kill a suspected terrorist abroad than detain, question, and try a known one in the United States.

In any case, the president — immune from criticism from the hard Left, which is angrier about conservative presidents waterboarding known terrorists than liberal ones executing suspected ones — has concluded that one way to win in Afghanistan is to kill as many terrorists and insurgents as possible. And while the global public will praise his kinder, gentler outreach, privately he evidently thinks that we will be safer the more the U.S. marines shoot Taliban terrorists and the more Hellfire missiles blow up al-Qaeda planners.

Why otherwise would a Nobel Peace Prize laureate order such continued offensive missions?

Victory is most easily obtained by ending the enemy’s ability to resist — and by offering him an alternative future that might appear better than the past. We may not like to think all of that entails killing those who wish to kill us, but it does, always has, and tragically always will — until the nature of man himself changes.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.