BF2S Forums Thank you WP ...

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

I just think he is too quick to for lack of a better word... defend... these people that would kill us first chance they get...
  Every time any radical islam guy or group does something or threatens and we mention it... you come back with... The US is bad too and they are the same...blah blah blah...

yes they do.  always.  you aint seeing things.  thats pretty much all they do.

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Braddock wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

freudian slip and a few beers...lol...  you defend these people way to much in my opinion...
I'm not sure if that's because of your thinly veiled disgust with the US or that you think these crazy islam radicals are right?
Maybe i'm wrong... i sure hope so?

Un-fucking-believable... You continue to epitomize the quintessential "with us or against us" right-winger on this forum. The fact that you would, on any level, equate those of us here who speak out against certain foreign or security policies with actual Islamic terrorists highlights your utter ignorance. Perhaps you should stick to a FOX News forum.

"your people".... sheesh.

I kinda said it to get under his skin... I actually have a lot of respect for him and his knowledge of world events and how much he has travelled... The thing i was trying to convey is that... I don't believe he or you has AQ posters on your wall or idolizes the group.. I just think he is too quick to for lack of a better word... defend... these people that would kill us first chance they get...
  Every time any radical islam guy or group does something or threatens and we mention it... you come back with... The US is bad too and they are the same...blah blah blah...
   Doesn't it bother you guys that Iran is closing in on missiles that can reach and obliterate Europe?   I realize that unless they are really stupid they wouldn't use them... but imagine the bullshit they could put Europe and other close countries through by threatening you guys and even the US eventually...
  We have your back and will fight alongside you all...but let's not discount what the radical guys are trying to do...  that's all... They are already making fun of Obama... 
  People of all ethnicities come to the US and realize that they can say and do what they wan't and follow any religion they wan't... i just wish people that listen to these maniacal folks could come see the US and realize that we are just regular people that wan't to live normal lives and raise our kids in peace.... just like they do...

That's actually a very calm and level-headed post... I thought a flame war war might have ensued! First off, I want to say that I've been to America - New York - and it's one of my favourite cities in the world, I also have many American friends whom I get along really well with. I do not, by any stretch of the imagination, hate America.

However, what you describe here as a 'defence' of extremism is actually just a critical, bigger-picture assessment of the current conflicts we are witnessing. There is no point talking about the Middle East's perception of the US if we are not going to talk about what the US have been doing in the Middle East for the last century... it's not an un-American argument or an unpatriotic argument, it's just an informed argument. Beliefs and Movements don't spring out of nowhere, these extremists' beliefs may indeed be warped (and I fully believe they are) but they have come from somewhere and if you want to seriously debate the issue of extremism and the Middle East you have to ask why these beliefs have come about (and that doesn't mean you are, in any way, condoning them).

I notice you seem to talk about Al Qaeda and Iran in the same breath. I do not view them as being connected in this way. Iran is a country with a specific type of democratic constitution brought about by their own indigenous revolution. They clash with the US on a number of issues... particularly the fact that the US has invaded the countries on either side of them (effectively a pincer movement in their eyes) and because of unquestioning US support of Israel. These points of conflict do not automatically align them with the International terror group Al Qaeda, to believe that would be utter nonsense. Iran is a country with its own agenda and Al Qaeda does not fit with that, if anything Iran would be considered too moderate for most Al Qaeda followers. We here in Europe view Israel as being every bit as bad as these other supposed despotic tyrant nations and the US sat back and actively allowed Israel to build up nuclear weapons, many of us now just consider it hypocritical that the US would wag its finger at another nation doing exactly the same thing.

In conclusion, I do not, and will not, defend any terrorists (they can burn in hell for all I care) but I will also not argue issues concerning the Middle East in a one-dimensional manner that negates any wrongdoing on behalf of the West... that would be pure ignorance.

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Sorry. The alcohol is getting to me. I thought you were talking about Iran.

The government isn't an enemy. So unless/until there is an Iranian-like revolution that installs a nutjob regime...no issue.

Bit shortsighted. Pushing populist sentiment towards such a regime does not seem wise.

We're pushing nothing. It's the Paki government that's doing any pushing. They set Pakistani policy.

CamPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Wow. You clearly haven't read much about their training. It's all about marksmanship, hand-to-hand combat, small squad tactics, explosives, etc. And they don't use mobile phones very much...they are far too OPSEC-conscious.

What part of any of their bombings in the west used hand-to-hand combat or marksmanship? Their form of guerrilla warfare doesn't require it. I'm pretty certain that, if they have any sense, they can do all the explosives training they need to do in the darkest suburbs of Karachi and Islamabad - or Rabat, Cairo, Khartoum....

I'm just shaking my head at this inanity.

CamPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

AQ is hardly operating in Iraq at all anymore. Mostly Shi'a insurgents at this point.

And like I said, far fewer numbers are being hurt or killed now than in the past.

Your "call" is so completely off base that it doesn't even merit a response. Check your cynicism and try some objectivity.

Al Qaeda is as much an ethos as it is an organisation. They started the ball rolling on open source terrorism. The relevance of 'defeating' or marginalising their leadership is somewhat questionable (what leadership is required?). Terrorism mostly involves cells that operate largely independently of each other for fear of infiltration. The tactic means that no matter how many 'leaders' you kill the body lives on. And those cells are no doubt widely distributed across the world with a concentration in urban Pakistan proper.

They operate independently of one another, but not independent of the overall AQ leadership. That allows for unity of effort. They don't have contact with that leadership any longer...hence the inability of AQ to mount anything resembling unity of effort toward a common objective.

CamPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Soldiers have been taken out and the level is still lower. So how does that fact factor into your argument?

When and how many? From what I gather there was a small (4%) reduction, looking at the numbers. Violence levels are on a par with 2003 at the moment. I don't think the violence will disappear perhaps for decades.

ORLY?

CamPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I wouldn't kill you. I just won't put myself in that situation. For some reason, I figured you'd understand. Apparently not.

I'm not complaining about you not telling me. I'm just saying it's pointless to introduce a shadowy argument against which nothing can be said because both parties aren't privvy to said information.

It's especially difficult for you when it contradicts your position.

CamPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Actually, your view is remarkably naive. Israel doesn't have to take those kinds of chances because their situation is completely different from an implementation perspective. As I pointed out before.

'Completely different from an implementation perspective'? The USA comprises of 50 states the size of regular countries. Each state could independently 'do an Israel' in terms of securing the collective. The 'we're too big' argument doesn't wash.

No, they couldn't. Air travel (and security) in the US is controlled by the Federal government, not the states. The argument absolutely does wash.

CamPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And that leadership is not driving what happens in Morocco. Hence the fractionalized nature that I mentioned before. Each regional group is acting pretty much autonomously. Kind of hard to work toward a common objective when you aren't working together and don't know what that common objective is.

Leadership is not that important in the context of this form of anarchist terror, as stated above. The 'each regional group acting autonomously' is exactly something I find particularly scary. The common objective is quite clear: 'kill/maim/damage western people/interests'. I don't think any of their members are 'confused'.

It's anarchist now because the leadership is unable to direct the actions of the various cells. So they are acting independently. Their common objective is not "kill/maim/damage...blahblahblah". Their common objective is driving the US out of the ME and subjugating the entire ME and most of Europe as part of the Caliphate.

What you described was a tactical objective...which, when properly coordinated (something they can't seem to do right now), can support the higher level objective.

CamPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

That is also remarkably naive. Making a video and coordinating on something as complex as operational planning are night and day. They don't use phones, and they don't use the internet directly. That makes distributed planning nigh on impossible.

See above. What co-ordination is required? Open source cell-based anarchistic terrorism.

You're either refusing to understand or I can't explain it simply enough for you to understand.

CamPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Lives are always at stake. You identify the most likely and most dangerous courses of action. You mitigate the most likely first, then worry about the most dangerous...assuming they are not one and the same. It all still boils down to balancing probability, risk, and resources.

Well the west got the balance wrong didn't they?

In certain incidents, yes. But in the vast majority of incidents...no.

CamPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Which stock markets? From what I've seen, the stock markets react far more to credit crises than to car bombs in Iraq. Maybe you saw something I haven't?

Did you see the stock markets on 9/11? Did you see the price of oil when major terror attacks were perpetrated in the likes of Iraq and Nigeria or when tension with Iran was heightened?

Oh, I thought we were still talking about the recent attacks. I can understand why you would not want to remain on that topic for this aspect of the discussion.

Yeah...what happened to the stock market after 9/11? It went through the roof. No attacks since 9/11 have impacted the US market to any appreciable degree. Even the most spectacular attacks in Iraq did nothing to the US market (or any other market, for that matter).

Tensions with Iran are not terrorist attacks, btw. That would be a completely different factor affecting the markets.

CamPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Please point to where I ever said "global attacks have decreased". Go ahead. I'll wait.

And how many in that list are AQ, btw? How many were "spectacular"?

FEOS wrote:

...Based on the decrease in attacks globally...

Took me about two seconds to find it. In your previous post. And attacks have to be 'spectacular' now to warrant a mention? lol.

Took you about that long to take it out of context, too. I was talking about AQ or AQ-related attacks and you damn well know it. The majority of the attacks in your link were non-AQ related.

Braddock wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Perhaps you should stick to a FOX News forum.

lol....dont be such a parrot

I think you'll find it's your posts that share more in common with Parrots usmarine... short bursts of words, usually with a little contrived, comedic value.

lulz

you dolt.   anyone who spouts off about fox news is a parrot.

i challenge you to go watch 1 month of msnbc, 1 of CNN, then 1 month of fox.

count the number of dems vs repubs.  you will find that fox has the most balance.  has been proved already, but thats my homework for you.

FEOS wrote:

So then the Pakistani government has nothing to worry about. They aren't allowing it to happen...they just can't stop it. How would that lead to an Iran-like situation?

I mean...other than the fact that they DO allow it to happen privately while decrying it publicly.

Not bombers, btw. UAVs.

No correlation between popular opinion on the ground and consequent changes on the political scene? Have you read about Reza Shah Pahlavi? Did Iranians resent America much when the CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadeq? Cause and effect FEOS. Like when the US armed the Mujihadeen in Afghanistan back in the 80s or like the US is doing now arming Sunni and Shia militants in Iraq to 'police' the country....

FEOS wrote:

No, I can fully deal with logic. If only you would use some on that particular topic. You confuse so many different things during your "analysis" that it devolves into nonsense.

Did I ever...EVER...imply that the AQ leadership is running a mobile training camp? AQ leadership running around the mountains of Waziristan has nothing to do with training others. You keep mixing streams of the argument.

You implied the AQ leadership had been largely disabled due to coalition endeavours in Afghanistan. I'm pointing out that they would, logically speaking, probably be in the far safer haven of Pakistan than somewhere like that, running operations from there, spreading their cancer. Which again reduces the mission to what I asserted it is: pounding mud huts.

FEOS wrote:

Your insistence that AQ is not an actual group but an "ethos" does not make it so. It is, in fact, a group--a group founded on certain principles and objectives.

Your assessment of AQ's ability to strike whenever and whatever it likes is also incredibly uninformed. Look up "IJU" and "Germany". Then see how that fits into your view of the world.

Random people saying they are doing something in AQ's name is not nearly the same thing as AQ actually doing something.

I've lost count of the disparate groups that espouse the 'virtues' of Al Qaeda in their atrocities and proclaim themselves 'Al Qaeda in Egypt' or 'Al Qaeda in Iraq'. The problem is far wider than this little coven of witches in Afghanistan/Pakistan. As I have oft repeated - Al Qaeda itself is not that important: their 'values' are the global ethos of a new wave of open source terrorism. Simply being in Afghanistan and Iraq is simply putting up an advertisement for unemployed and sexually frustrated young men to engage in 'interesting' pyrotechnics. Basically the coalition is missing the point. One of the only honest and telling things Donald Rumsfeld said was on Afghanistan when he said 'there are no good targets there'....

FEOS wrote:

Oh I forgot...Iraqi casualties dropped in the same manner.


http://www.iraqbodycount.org/graphs/reg … ?place=all
No need to be a douchebag, Cam. Your insistence that I don't care about people dying is getting old. Perhaps you could take that opinion and shove it up your sanctimonious ass?

lol. Time of the month? I think you'll find my original comment is correct. The death toll for this year is on a par with 2003. And look at early 2008 - anomaly?







It has improved but the violence hasn't gone away and nor is it likely to.

FEOS wrote:

Well, if you told me something about the power industry that you couldn't source for some reason (proprietary information, maybe), I would take you at your word...since it's what you do for a living.

I have never heard what specific role you have. I know you're military in some capacity but you could be anything. I know enough from disagreements between the likes of usmarine and gunslinger and between incumbent and retired generals to know that opinion still plays a part within military circles.

FEOS wrote:

Guess what Cam - not quickly.

Not quickly so don't bother?

FEOS wrote:

Whether you, me, or anyone else thinks it is obtainable or not is irrelevant. It is their strategic objective and they will keep doing what they're doing until 1) they are defunct,  2) they change their objective, or 3) they achieve it.

1) Not going to happen.
3) Not going to happen.

I'm more concerned about the open source Islamic terrorism based on an Al Qaeda ethos than driving a bunch of nutballs deep into the nearest unstable nuclear power, whilst at the same time essentially recruiting for them.

FEOS wrote:

So you're saying that AQ leadership isn't driving what these individuals are doing. Which means AQ's leadership (and therefore AQ as an organization) is no longer operationally effective.

Why didn't you just agree with me outright then?

My point is that the Afghanistan mission is pointless and counter-productive. The Afghanistan mission and particularly the Iraq mission has cemented and bolstered anti-Western sentiment, has destabilised Pakistan, strengthened Iran and created probably thousands of potential terrorists ready to attempt a strike within our homelands: counter-productivity. Balance that against a reduction in 'operational effectiveness' and I see fail. At the end of the day, we can be struck at anytime by anyone anywhere and nothing in Afghanistan has really made a blind bit of fucking difference. Al Qaeda is not the be all and end all. At the end of the day it will just be an Osama icon on t-shirts for young radicals. And we still see today from Colombia to Nepal the young machine gun toting rebels proudly wearing their Che t-shirts, decades after his death. All that has been done is that 'the anti-western movement' has been bolstered. And at the end of the day I haven't seen how the operational effectiveness of Al Qaeda has been reduced. Ayman Al Zawahiri and Osama Bin Laden are still at large after 7 years. Nothing suggests to me that an Islamic terror attack directed by the likes of them cannot be carried out. Where is the evidence? A 3 year gap? There was 8 between WTC 1 and WTC 2. 

FEOS wrote:

Wow. Leaps in "logic" to say the least.

You use the market reaction to 9/11 as a justification for your argument that terrorist attacks affect the markets. Yet you choose to ignore the fact that the attacks since 9/11 have had no impact on the market at all. Your theory = 1 data point for, 7 years of data points against.

The war in Afghanistan is far more than just "pounding mud huts". In fact, the majority of the fight is with the Taliban at this point, not AQ. Which goes back to the original point: AQ leadership is unable to do anything in the face of the pressure on them from multiple fronts.

I never said that just because there has been a three year gap in AQ-initiated spectacular attacks that "Afghanistan has successfully prevented terror attacks ever again". If you want to make hyperbolic claims, please attribute them properly...to yourself.

Ignore the impact on airlines if you really must, I won't hold it against you...

You used the 'lull' as an indicator of progress when quite clearly that is too short a period of time to be sure.

FEOS wrote:

I've already addressed your "ethos" claim. AQ is an organization. It is an organization that is nearly non-functional at this point. You clearly have no idea what I think because you are dead wrong in your clairvoyant claim.

You continue to oversimplify the situation to the point where you are dealing with your own imagination instead of reality. I guess that makes it easier for you to argue, but it doesn't make your position any less flawed.

The problem is that we are talking about apples and oranges I think. You are entirely focused on one tiny sliver of the Islamic terror movement and I'm concerned with the broader picture. If it makes you feel better to think that you are addressing potential Islamic terror attacks by dropping bombs on mountains for a continuous 7 year period then so be it. The ironic thing is the amount of money, blood and effort spent when you constantly poo-poo the cost or scale of implementing vastly more effective domestic security measures.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-21 17:23:09)

FEOS wrote:

So you don't want to address Pakistan's government's choice to take the action they have and their responsibility for it?

What is there to address? Would there be airtstrikes in the NWFP if the US weren't in Afghanistan? Would the US be putting them in a position whereby they had to allow the strikes? They are complicit in thier own downfall it is true.

FEOS wrote:

I implied nothing. You inferred what you wanted to.

It is entirely likely that they are in Waziristan or elsewhere in the FATA. That doesn't mean their life is easy or they have/use modern comms.

It's not entirely likely if you apply rational reasoning and put yourself in the position of the leadership. Why wait to get killed in stone age land? It goes against Guerrilla Warfare 101. Are they stupid?

FEOS wrote:

What makes you think there aren't ops going on against those other groups? If you think the effort is limited to Afghanistan and Iraq, you are sorely mistaken.

I'm quite sure ops are going on against these other groups. Ops I believe to be far more effective - clandestine ops, infiltration, interception: without the counter-productive aura of imperialism that occupation brings. I think the money ploughed into the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan would be far better spent on expanding these ops.

FEOS wrote:

Close, but not quite. Again, it's a balancing act: do you make massive changes based on information that doesn't tell you anything you can really act upon? Keep in mind that the security requirements in US airports were pretty much the same as those in Europe and Asia pre-9/11. Massive changes occurred globally in airport and aircraft security in response to the tactics employed by AQ that day. So it wasn't just a US problem, now was it?

The report I spoke of earlier very specifically mentioned the use of airliners on skyscrapers. As such, in 1995, the US and the rest of the world should have taken measures to make their airliners hijack-proof. It seems we all had to play catch up on Israel because we didn't realise how much we are hated by certain elements of the global community. The UK had information on liquids being used to cobble together an explosive device on board air planes - the entire world rolled out restrictions on liquids within days.

FEOS wrote:

Your understanding of the mission in Afghanistan is woefully underinformed and short-sighted. It's not just about AQ there. It's about helping Afghanistan have a functioning government that takes care of its people and is an active member of the world community. That is what will prevent further growth of terrorists. Pretty much exactly what you say needs to be done throughout the ME...yet you think it's pointless in Afghanistan.

Make up your mind.

I am well aware that Afghanistan is primarily a mission involving the prevention of the Taliban from taking power again and in making Afghanistan a functioning nation. That very patronising attitude and throwback to traditional imperialism is exactly why the effort is counter-productive. It does tie in, in one aspect, to how I believe such terrorism can be countered (in part) - bringing affluence to those who might be susceptible to overtures from the terrorists. However we can ill afford that, why should they get a free pass and why would they accept such patronising benevolence - have they no national pride? Political evolution comes from within generally, not from without.

FEOS wrote:

I didn't realize the airlines were the stock market. I guess it could've changed or something. Perhaps you have a source that shows the airlines are the entirety of the stock markets? I mean, that's what you said was so grossly impacted by not just 9/11, but also Madrid (no airlines involved) and 7/7 (again no airlines involved).

Airlines form a part of the stockmarket and the global economy. Insurers had to up their premiums. Stock exchanges had to initiate anti-panic selling measures. New York City's GDP decreased by $27.3bn over the end of 2001 and all of 2002. $2.8b in wages lost. Impact.

FEOS wrote:

Three years. Out of five (or seven, depending on your measuring stick). Not that short of a time when compared to the overall window, now is it?

Less than half?

FEOS wrote:

Irony is ironic.

You are the one who is totally focused on Afghanistan--like it is the only counterterrorism effort going on anywhere. And you focus on AQ leadership as if it is the only thing the US is concerned about.

As I said above I'm sure counter-terrorism measures are being taken across the globe. Effective non-counter productive ones.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-22 05:57:03)

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So you don't want to address Pakistan's government's choice to take the action they have and their responsibility for it?

What is there to address? Would there be airtstrikes in the NWFP if the US weren't in Afghanistan? Would the US be putting them in a position whereby they had to allow the strikes? They are complicit in thier own downfall it is true.

Not if the people there weren't sheltering the Taliban and AQ.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I implied nothing. You inferred what you wanted to.

It is entirely likely that they are in Waziristan or elsewhere in the FATA. That doesn't mean their life is easy or they have/use modern comms.

It's not entirely likely if you apply rational reasoning and put yourself in the position of the leadership. Why wait to get killed in stone age land? It goes against Guerrilla Warfare 101. Are they stupid?

Well...they hung out in Taliban-run Afghanistan for quite a while. What do you think?

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

What makes you think there aren't ops going on against those other groups? If you think the effort is limited to Afghanistan and Iraq, you are sorely mistaken.

I'm quite sure ops are going on against these other groups. Ops I believe to be far more effective - clandestine ops, infiltration, interception: without the counter-productive aura of imperialism that occupation brings. I think the money ploughed into the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan would be far better spent on expanding these ops.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you are still overlooking the bulk of Iraq and Afghanistan operations, which are not CT-related, but rather related to building/rebuilding a productive infrastructure for the people of those countries.

Something I don't think the military should be doing, btw. But it can't be done without the military providing security and helping Iraq and Afghanistan rebuild their own security forces/military.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Close, but not quite. Again, it's a balancing act: do you make massive changes based on information that doesn't tell you anything you can really act upon? Keep in mind that the security requirements in US airports were pretty much the same as those in Europe and Asia pre-9/11. Massive changes occurred globally in airport and aircraft security in response to the tactics employed by AQ that day. So it wasn't just a US problem, now was it?

The report I spoke of earlier very specifically mentioned the use of airliners on skyscrapers. As such, in 1995, the US and the rest of the world should have taken measures to make their airliners hijack-proof. It seems we all had to play catch up on Israel because we didn't realise how much we are hated by certain elements of the global community. The UK had information on liquids being used to cobble together an explosive device on board air planes - the entire world rolled out restrictions on liquids within days.

Yeah...and under what circumstances did that liquid warning come out? Post 9/11. A completely different global perspective than 1995-2001.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Your understanding of the mission in Afghanistan is woefully underinformed and short-sighted. It's not just about AQ there. It's about helping Afghanistan have a functioning government that takes care of its people and is an active member of the world community. That is what will prevent further growth of terrorists. Pretty much exactly what you say needs to be done throughout the ME...yet you think it's pointless in Afghanistan.

Make up your mind.

I am well aware that Afghanistan is primarily a mission involving the prevention of the Taliban from taking power again and in making Afghanistan a functioning nation. That very patronising attitude and throwback to traditional imperialism is exactly why the effort is counter-productive. It does tie in, in one aspect, to how I believe such terrorism can be countered (in part) - bringing affluence to those who might be susceptible to overtures from the terrorists. However we can ill afford that, why should they get a free pass and why would they accept such patronising benevolence - have they no national pride? Political evolution comes from within generally, not from without.

Helping a country that asks for it (which Afghanistan has done) is somehow "patronizing" and "imperialistic"?

I guarantee they'd rather have the help than the alternative.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I didn't realize the airlines were the stock market. I guess it could've changed or something. Perhaps you have a source that shows the airlines are the entirety of the stock markets? I mean, that's what you said was so grossly impacted by not just 9/11, but also Madrid (no airlines involved) and 7/7 (again no airlines involved).

Airlines form a part of the stockmarket and the global economy. Insurers had to up their premiums. Stock exchanges had to initiate anti-panic selling measures. New York City's GDP decreased by $27.3bn over the end of 2001 and all of 2002. $2.8b in wages lost. Impact.

And again...you are referring to a single data point. You said "attacks". That means plural. As in more than just 9/11. Yet you keep pointing to the impact of 9/11 (which recovered quickly, btw) while trying to say it has been that way with every attack since. The data is against you on this one, Cam.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Three years. Out of five (or seven, depending on your measuring stick). Not that short of a time when compared to the overall window, now is it?

Less than half?

Either more or slightly less than half, depending on whether you are using 2001 or 2003 as a measure. Regardless, it's not at all an insignificant amount of time in comparison. Certainly enough to not warrant dismissal.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Irony is ironic.

You are the one who is totally focused on Afghanistan--like it is the only counterterrorism effort going on anywhere. And you focus on AQ leadership as if it is the only thing the US is concerned about.

As I said above I'm sure counter-terrorism measures are being taken across the globe. Effective non-counter productive ones.

And the CT-specific operations going on in Iraq and Afghanistan (NOT the airstrikes that make the news) are effective and non-counter productive as well. You just don't hear much about them until well after the fact...and the intel that is garnered from them has resulted in multiple successful follow-on ops, both within and outside of those AORs.

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Not if the people there weren't sheltering the Taliban and AQ.

Beside the point. It would be better to use covert ops against these groups rather than, as I've stated before, destabilising another nation and playing into the hands of the extremists with the 'infidel attacks' and imperialist slant.

What makes you think "covert ops" would be any less destabilizing in that region? There are no actions that can be taken in that region (other than giving AQ and the Taliban a sanctuary there) that wouldn't be destabilizing.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Well...they hung out in Taliban-run Afghanistan or quite a while. What do you think?

They hung out there ... until the coalition arrived. At which point they swiftly made for the Tora Bora mountains and beyond.

You miss the point. Afghanistan under the Taliban was basically the same as the FATA area where they are now.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you are still overlooking the bulk of Iraq and Afghanistan operations, which are not CT-related, but rather related to building/rebuilding a productive infrastructure for the people of those countries.

Something I don't think the military should be doing, btw. But it can't be done without the military providing security and helping Iraq and Afghanistan rebuild their own security forces/military.

What does 'CT' stand for'? Personally I don't think we - the western world - have the financial capability of achieving the 'rebuilt country' of which you speak. It is a shame because it would be the bulk of a solution to the issues but I disagree with it on grounds of neo-imperialism and on the basis that taxpayers money would be being spent on the upkeep of an entirely separate and distant nation. The USSR never succeeded against what amounts to a rabble and at the time they were quite powerful too.

CT=counterterrorism

The USSR had a well-armed and trained force they were fighting against. Neither AQ nor the Taliban have the backing of a US peer like the muj did back in the day. That's why you have to look at THIS SITUATION and not just assume that because certain aspects are similar that it is the same as the '80s.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Yeah...and under what circumstances did that liquid warning come out? Post 9/11. A completely different global perspective than 1995-2001.

The fact that our perspective has changed is a good thing. Perhaps that is the one and only good thing to come out of 9/11. We can't be so incompetent and lackadaisical when it comes to domestic security anymore.

We are in violent agreement.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Helping a country that asks for it (which Afghanistan has done) is somehow "patronizing" and "imperialistic"?

I guarantee they'd rather have the help than the alternative.

Afghanistan asked to be invaded? Any proud citizen of a nation is going to look upon external influence and direction with derision - as no doubt you would with China or Russia calling the shots on your nation or rebuilding it for you. That is the fundamental problem here: western nations still don't realise that they aren't viewed as benevolent uncles. They're viewed as alien self-interested potential threats to their culture. How many people get killed for taking jobs off the coalition or helping them out - for the simple reason they have been consorting with the enemy? How many people marched on the same square that Saddam's statue stood in demanding the US go home yesterday? Are you aware that the US is known as the Great Satan? Are you aware that they are aware that the US steadfastly backs their sworn enemy Israel on each and every single matter? You simply don't understand nationalism and pride - two very prevalent human traits - if you can't understand this.

The Taliban certainly did when they refused the offer provided: turn over UBL or get your ass kicked. They chose the latter. Worked out really well for them, didn't it?

BL: The people of Afghanistan are better off today than they were in 2001. They would be even better off if the Taliban faded into the annals of history.

The killing of people for taking jobs with the Coalition is something that was once common in Iraq. It has never been much of an issue in Afghanistan.

The US is called the Great Satan by one country: Iran.

I fully understand nationalism and pride. I get derided for it daily on these forums.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And again...you are referring to a single data point. You said "attacks". That means plural. As in more than just 9/11. Yet you keep pointing to the impact of 9/11 (which recovered quickly, btw) while trying to say it has been that way with every attack since. The data is against you on this one, Cam.

Panic selling occurred on 7/7 and Atocha. It depressed the pound as well. The effects may well be transient but people make losses on such events, just like New York City after 9/11. The IRA bombing of Canary Wharf cost the UK £85m for instance. These types of attacks are very effective.

Source?

How long did it take those markets to recover? Days? Weeks, maybe? People take losses on such events...and people make money on such events. It's the nature of the markets.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Either more or slightly less than half, depending on whether you are using 2001 or 2003 as a measure. Regardless, it's not at all an insignificant amount of time in comparison. Certainly enough to not warrant dismissal.

When we go ten years with no event I'll review the situation. The events of which we speak are so seldom that it is difficult to measure mitigation efforts against number of events.

Oh, I see. You have to go twice as long without anything happening in order for you to accept that the situation is changed. Just because it's difficult doesn't mean you have to use an inordinately long measuring stick to figure it out.

Your logic applies in the other direction, then. Since they are so seldom, then a single event of that type doesn't affect the assessment that things have changed for the better. It's just too hard to measure.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And the CT-specific operations going on in Iraq and Afghanistan (NOT the airstrikes that make the news) are effective and non-counter productive as well. You just don't hear much about them until well after the fact...and the intel that is garnered from them has resulted in multiple successful follow-on ops, both within and outside of those AORs.

Like I said, doable without occupation - just like in Egypt, Syria, Morocco, etc. - the much smarter approach.

It wouldn't have been doable without occupation in Afghanistan. The Taliban were not cooperative. Egypt, Morocco, and others are.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The Taliban certainly did when they refused the offer provided: turn over UBL or get your ass kicked. They chose the latter. Worked out really well for them, didn't it?

If anyone in the US govt had any real education on their culture they would have known that was improbable, handing over someone who has asked for refuge.
Might as well have asked for them to hand over their guns and first-born sons.

It would have made better sense to contain AQ in Afghanistan, rather than spread them all over Pakistan, Iraq, Africa etc gathering followers along the way.

You act as if there were no cultural experts in Afghanistan back then. Of course that was a known cultural aspect...but it's not like we were just going to say "nevermind" when 3,000 citizens were dead and three buildings  were damaged/destroyed.

I'm pretty sure the intent was to eliminate them in Afghanistan...but the Afghan fighters were given responsibility they weren't ready for and they got into Pakistan.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The US is called the Great Satan by one country: Iran.

Remember who called whom the 'Red Menace'?
Come to think of it, did that mean USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam, can't remember.
Hysterical paranoia and catchy tags aren't reserved for the towelheads it seems.

Your point? Because you clearly missed the context of the discussion and my response.

Nevermind. I just realized my response was to CameronPoe, not you. Thanks for your input.

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

What makes you think "covert ops" would be any less destabilizing in that region? There are no actions that can be taken in that region (other than giving AQ and the Taliban a sanctuary there) that wouldn't be destabilizing.

They would be a lot easier to conceal and you could pass off events that make the news as 'conspiracy theory nonsense': the value being that you don't look imperialistic or like Israel's henchman, which as I said is a loud and clear call to arms.

The bulk of the operations that are making a difference in the fight against AQ (and Taliban) leadership aren't conventional in nature.

The bulk of the operations that support the Afghan government's rebuilding efforts are. 

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You miss the point. Afghanistan under the Taliban was basically the same as the FATA area where they are now.

And now they'll move from FATA to deeper Pakistan. And then onto Jammu and Kashmir. And beyond.

And if they do, the Pakistani military and intel services can deal with them...just as they did with KSM and others. That's probably why they're hanging out in the FATA...the Paki govt has little to no ability to do anything in those areas.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

CT=counterterrorism

The USSR had a well-armed and trained force they were fighting against. Neither AQ nor the Taliban have the backing of a US peer like the muj did back in the day. That's why you have to look at THIS SITUATION and not just assume that because certain aspects are similar that it is the same as the '80s.

What makes you so confident that you can achieve a stable Afghanistan when there hasn't been one in decades? Do you think you could achieve similar in Somalia? Sudan? What kind of budget do you propose allocating to this? What you speak of took modern nations centuries? What makes Afghanistan so special? You can't instil culture overnight or even over decades.

But you seem to be saying that because changes haven't been made in a few years that everyone should just give up...then you say you can't change things "even over decades". Make up your mind.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The Taliban certainly did when they refused the offer provided: turn over UBL or get your ass kicked. They chose the latter. Worked out really well for them, didn't it?

BL: The people of Afghanistan are better off today than they were in 2001. They would be even better off if the Taliban faded into the annals of history.

The killing of people for taking jobs with the Coalition is something that was once common in Iraq. It has never been much of an issue in Afghanistan.

The US is called the Great Satan by one country: Iran.

I fully understand nationalism and pride. I get derided for it daily on these forums.

Like I said - they didn't ask to get invaded. Whether or not you believe or whether it is the actual case that people in Afghanistan are better off is irrelevant. In Ireland the Brits came up with a tactic of 'killing home rule with kindness'. We basically showed them the two fingers. It is degrading for anyone with any dignity to hold their hand out to a foreign power. Especially foreign powers that have interfered in the politics of their region often to the detriment of the inhabitants for as long as they can remember. What makes you think they would accept the west over the USSR? They will be holding their hand out begrudgingly and through gritted teeth and with a knife behind their back in the other. It didn't take long for the CIA-sponsored mujihadeen to turn the guns on their benefactors did it? And we see the same mistake occurring today in western Iraq - allowing local militias to police their own, effectively weakening the supposed goal of a strong central government and paving the way for a shitfest when the coalition leaves.

The Taliban absolutely did ask to get booted from power when they refused to cooperate in turning over UBL.

The reason for turning their guns on the US was because the US screwed the pooch by pulling out completely and irrevocably after the USSR left. If we hadn't done that (which is exactly what you are proposing here, btw), the Taliban wouldn't have come to power and UBL wouldn't have had a place to grow his organization.

Yet you want us to do that again.

CP wrote:

As to the Great Satan: there is a worrisome thing about education throughout the middle east (this I was informed of by a chap from the UAE at work) - they teach 'The Chronicles of the Elders of Zion' as fact. Don't labour under any delusion that only Iran view the US as the Great Satan. They all know the US-Israel link.

Perhaps the linkage in your rant is clear to you. But it is a non sequitir to me.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Source?

How long did it take those markets to recover? Days? Weeks, maybe? People take losses on such events...and people make money on such events. It's the nature of the markets.

It's quite simple really. I have a buddy who was on holiday in NYC during 9/11. He was stuck on Manhattan for four days in a ghost town where hardly any business was being transacted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_econ … 01_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_200 … mic_impact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Docklands_bombing

To think that such attacks don't cause economic losses is plain incorrect.

And again: how long did it take those markets to recover? What impact have any of the attacks in Iraq or Afghanistan had on world markets? You're putting far too much emphasis on that.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Oh, I see. You have to go twice as long without anything happening in order for you to accept that the situation is changed. Just because it's difficult doesn't mean you have to use an inordinately long measuring stick to figure it out.

Your logic applies in the other direction, then. Since they are so seldom, then a single event of that type doesn't affect the assessment that things have changed for the better. It's just too hard to measure.

We are talking about amazingly small sample data sets here. Measuring it is just too hard yes.

So your position is no more or less valid than mine.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It wouldn't have been doable without occupation in Afghanistan. The Taliban were not cooperative. Egypt, Morocco, and others are.

A far more intelligent approach would have been to embed covert ops with the Northern Alliance and let them do all of the dirty work whilst bombing the nation from Uzbek bases. No occupation, information gathered, infrastructure (what little there is) destroyed.

What do you think the CIA and SOF were doing up there...building swingsets?

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The bulk of the operations that are making a difference in the fight against AQ (and Taliban) leadership aren't conventional in nature.

The bulk of the operations that support the Afghan government's rebuilding efforts are.

1. It's the bulk - hence why I find conventional military occupation futile (especially given the counter-productivity and cost to our economies) when you can just engage in this.

So then this isn't futile, since occupation isn't what's occurring there. Or is the US occupying England because there are bases there. Or Germany because there are bases there. Or Japan because there are bases there. Or Djibouti because there is a base there. Or Qatar because there are bases there. Or UAE because there are bases there.

I could go on...

CP wrote:

2. And all across the middle east, not just in Afghanistan, young idiots are seeing the west 'rebuilding' Afghanistan as a call to arms.

Maybe they should ask the Afghans if they need help? Because it's not the run of the mill Afghan who's doing the insurgency thing in Afghanistan.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And if they do, the Pakistani military and intel services can deal with them...just as they did with KSM and others. That's probably why they're hanging out in the FATA...the Paki govt has little to no ability to do anything in those areas.

I had forgotten his name but now you reminded me. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was in RAWALPINDI when he got capture in SEPTEMBER 2002. Ramzi Bin-Alshib was captured in KARACHI in SEPTEMBER 2002. And you are trying to tell us that the Al Qaeda leadership are still in FATA???? You shouldn't have mentioned those - they damage your argument. They essentially corroborate the assertion that all that is happening in FATA is the pounding of mud huts.

Yes. Because gomers kept getting rolled up in the cities. Thanks for reinforcing my point.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

But you seem to be saying that because changes haven't been made in a few years that everyone should just give up...then you say you can't change things "even over decades". Make up your mind.

I'm saying that the venture is futile, pure and simple. I'm not advocating staying there for 50 years just to sort out the social and economic wellbeing of a distant country when there are enough domestic problems to go around and when security budgets could be better and more effectively spent.

So just leave the Afghans to the same situation the bred the Taliban and AQ safe havens? I think not.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The Taliban absolutely did ask to get booted from power when they refused to cooperate in turning over UBL.

The reason for turning their guns on the US was because the US screwed the pooch by pulling out completely and irrevocably after the USSR left. If we hadn't done that (which is exactly what you are proposing here, btw), the Taliban wouldn't have come to power and UBL wouldn't have had a place to grow his organization.

Yet you want us to do that again.

No Taliban spokesperson requested that the US bomb him and his country.

When they said "no"...that's essentially what they did. It's not like we were being ambiguous.

CP wrote:

Are you suggesting that the Afghans in the 80s should have traded one superpower as overlord for another? How very patronising and hypocritical. And you honestly think they turned the guns on you because you left? UBL's driver was to oust foreign influence from the middle east, in particular the US from the home of Mecca and Medina. And yet you believe they turned the guns on you because you left???

It's not a belief, it's a fact. The Muj had been told and were expecting the US to stick around and help them rebuild. We just beat feet when the Soviets left, leaving a power vacuum that the Taliban moved to fill. It wasn't an "overlord" situation.

Why is it that you see the world only in either imperialistic or isolationist terms? I thought you were a bit more open-minded than that.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Perhaps the linkage in your rant is clear to you. But it is a non sequitir to me.

It's not a rant. It's a fact. The US and Israel are interchangeable with most Arabs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … Jul22.html

And? Unless we cut off all ties with Israel and aid the Arab states around them in driving them into the sea, that will never change. Any support of Israel in any form or fashion is viewed as supporting Zionists. But that hatred isn't turned on the Brits (who created the mess and gave the Israelis nukes) or the French (who armed the Israelis) or anyone else. The US is just a convenient target, nothing more.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And again: how long did it take those markets to recover? What impact have any of the attacks in Iraq or Afghanistan had on world markets? You're putting far too much emphasis on that.

The bottom line is that their attacks are highly effective at costing our economies lots of money - the disruptions cost millions that won't be recovered.

Of course they will be recovered. They've already been recovered. Domestic stupidity has caused far more damage to the economies than any terrorist attack ever did.

CP wrote:

FEOS wrote:

What do you think the CIA and SOF were doing up there...building swingsets?

The point being to do it without occupation...

See above. Status of Forces Agreements and treaties between countries are not occupation.

FEOS wrote:

So then this isn't futile, since occupation isn't what's occurring there. Or is the US occupying England because there are bases there. Or Germany because there are bases there. Or Japan because there are bases there. Or Djibouti because there is a base there. Or Qatar because there are bases there. Or UAE because there are bases there.

I could go on...

Doctor it up all you want the general perception all across the target audience, the middle east, is western occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan. The west has directly intervened in the politics of another alien nation with the express purpose of creating a nation there that is to their liking and tastes.

US - England: long standing allies.
US - Germany: utter and deserved annihilation of the German nation in WWII. Modern day ally. Bases no longer required since the threat of the Red Menace receded (the real reason US maintained bases in Germany beyond what can strictly be deemed necessary).
US - Japan: utter and deserved annihilation of much of Japan in WWI. Modern day ally.
To my knowledge the UAE, Qatar and Djibouti were never invaded by the west and forced at gunpoint or through circumstance to acquiesce to bases.... I'm sure Afghanistan and Iraq had plenty of choice in the matter.... At least Iraq know when they'll have their sovereignty back now.

FEOS wrote:

Maybe they should ask the Afghans if they need help? Because it's not the run of the mill Afghan who's doing the insurgency thing in Afghanistan.

What dictates what a 'run of the mill' Afghan is? Even the non-Taliban are tribal warlord-centric barbarians..... CIA-plant Hamid Karzai does not a normal nation make. And even Karzai is talking about extending an olive branch to the Taliban.

FEOS wrote:

Yes. Because gomers kept getting rolled up in the cities. Thanks for reinforcing my point.

I think you'll find that it was you that reinforced my point.

FEOS wrote:

So just leave the Afghans to the same situation the bred the Taliban and AQ safe havens? I think not.

Why not? You can deal with the problem through counter-terrorism measures at home and abroad. Fuck paying for them in blood and money and counter-productivity.

FEOS wrote:

When they said "no"...that's essentially what they did. It's not like we were being ambiguous.

I think you'll find that in literal terms I'm correct. The west did the invading on their own terms, nobody asked anything.

FEOS wrote:

And? Unless we cut off all ties with Israel and aid the Arab states around them in driving them into the sea, that will never change. Any support of Israel in any form or fashion is viewed as supporting Zionists. But that hatred isn't turned on the Brits (who created the mess and gave the Israelis nukes) or the French (who armed the Israelis) or anyone else. The US is just a convenient target, nothing more.

And? It makes the US 'the Great Satan' in their eyes, as I stated. US support for Israel is one of the most pivotal drivers of anti-US sentiment. Perhaps that should be food for thought not something to be brushed off. I can assure you Britain is no friend of Arabs. I take your point on France (except when it come to Arab North Africa) although they did take up the mantle of most pro-Palestinian European big power.

The crux is that anything the west, and in particular the US, does in the middle east will be viewed through the prism of suspicion and derision owing to support for Israel, support for Saddam, overthrowing Mossadeq, etc. Don't dream that they are ever going to love you through 'rebuilding their nations'. Remember how grateful the mujihadeen were...

FEOS wrote:

Of course they will be recovered. They've already been recovered. Domestic stupidity has caused far more damage to the economies than any terrorist attack ever did.

I'm fairly sure that the people who lost wages during these events aren't ever going to get them back. I'm wondering why you seem so intent on claiming that terrorist attacks have such little impact - why bother combating them then???

FEOS wrote:

See above. Status of Forces Agreements and treaties between countries are not occupation.

Semantics. The reality as viewed by the general populace of the region is otherwise. You know fine well you have those weak mickey mouse governments over a barrel. The west call all the shots and all they can do is meekly put pen to paper.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-23 16:12:03)