We Are Winning

Resurrection of all-time best threads

Moderator: Moderator

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 12418
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Postby Argonheart_Po » Thu May 22, 2008 11:34 pm

mutha is fixing

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Re: We Are Winning

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Thu May 22, 2008 11:54 pm

I had thought this would last about twenty or thirty years. Most terrorist or insurgent campaigns seem to burn themselves out gradually in that time, so I'd be sceptical as to whether this signals a comprehensive defeat in the near future. I hope so but am pessimistic.

The depressing thing is, Al Qaeda have really raised (or lowered) the bar for huge, ingenious and callous terrorist attacks. It does seem as if they are much less popular in the Muslim world now than a few years ago. I still have a horrible feeling there will at some point be some attacks on a scale that will make 911 look relatively minor and conventional. I wonder who their inheritors will be, ten or twenty years down the line. They may make Al Qaeda look relatively sane.
Last edited by Collateral Knowledge on Fri May 23, 2008 4:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
21 minutes of adventure!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:09 pm
Location: Death Valley

Postby methuselah » Fri May 23, 2008 1:38 am

Gee, I kept hearing the last few years from delusional liberals that Bush was creating more terrorists by fighting them. Could they have been wrong?
If you look out your window as the sun's going down, I'll be there by the side of the road, And I'll ride you away from the dirty down town, An ne'er again leave you alone
T-Bone Burnett

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Fri May 23, 2008 2:31 am

methuselah wrote:Gee, I kept hearing the last few years from delusional liberals that Bush was creating more terrorists by fighting them. Could they have been wrong?


I think you heard right metoosalade, what I fail to grasp is the connection of your statement to the OP.
better a bizarre humor than always angry

red fanged She-devil
User avatar
Posts: 19419
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:11 pm

Postby incognita » Fri May 23, 2008 2:35 am

Considering what's happening in Pakistan right now, I would hold off on the victory speeches. One "mission accomplished" is enough for me.
As an adult, the beer aisle at the grocery makes me feel exactly like the cereal aisle made me feel as a kid.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:09 pm
Location: Death Valley

Postby methuselah » Fri May 23, 2008 2:42 am

ToyTone wrote:
methuselah wrote:Gee, I kept hearing the last few years from delusional liberals that Bush was creating more terrorists by fighting them. Could they have been wrong?


I think you heard right metoosalade, what I fail to grasp is the connection of your statement to the OP.


I'll try to dumb it down for you so you can understand.

The OP is about fewer terrorist attacks. My sarcastic response was how can this be since liberals like you were saying Bush was creating more terrorists by fighting them.

I can't make it any simpler. Is there an adult there to help you?
If you look out your window as the sun's going down, I'll be there by the side of the road, And I'll ride you away from the dirty down town, An ne'er again leave you alone
T-Bone Burnett

Blue Eyed Devil
User avatar
Posts: 3244
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 5:13 am

Postby blueeyes_austin » Fri May 23, 2008 3:15 am

mutha is fixing
"We shall cause a distortionary response in US fiscal policy! God is great! God is great!"--Electrolyte channeling the 9/11 hijackers

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Fri May 23, 2008 4:28 am

ToyTone wrote:
methuselah wrote:Gee, I kept hearing the last few years from delusional liberals that Bush was creating more terrorists by fighting them. Could they have been wrong?


I think you heard right metoosalade, what I fail to grasp is the connection of your statement to the OP.


Because it appears from this trend (if true) that fighting terrorists might actually be a good way of lessening their number, and perhaps rather more effective than doing deals with them. Is that a hard concept to at least entertain?
21 minutes of adventure!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 12418
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Postby Argonheart_Po » Fri May 23, 2008 1:39 pm

I blame the Jews and the Yanks.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:49 pm

Postby Suheil » Fri May 23, 2008 1:57 pm

Collateral Knowledge wrote:
ToyTone wrote:
methuselah wrote:Gee, I kept hearing the last few years from delusional liberals that Bush was creating more terrorists by fighting them. Could they have been wrong?


I think you heard right metoosalade, what I fail to grasp is the connection of your statement to the OP.


Because it appears from this trend (if true) that fighting terrorists might actually be a good way of lessening their number, and perhaps rather more effective than doing deals with them. Is that a hard concept to at least entertain?


It depends on who is the terrorist Queen, when the enemy is Islam, Arabs and cause there is no way in hell the West will win, when it is about the hype, AQ and militant Islam we are all in the same boat.
a man from the east

Sole Guardian of Truth and Sanity
User avatar
Posts: 8083
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: We Are Winning

Postby Electrolyte » Fri May 23, 2008 2:55 pm

Collateral Knowledge wrote:It does seem as if they are much less popular in the Muslim world now than a few years ago.

That is my impression as well. This is the greatest victory if it is true. The great disaster was that these attacks were taking place and the attackers were viewed by large segments of the world population as heroes to be emulated.

My cynical take, however, is that they are less popular not because everyone has realized how wrong and horrible terrorism is, but rather because the terrorists haven't done much lately. They are like a sports team that isn't winning. I wonder if their popularity will crash or soar after the dirty bomb goes off in a city.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 13272
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:37 pm

Postby SeamusMcCool » Fri May 23, 2008 3:22 pm

mutha is fixing
"I'd stumbled into the middle of an evil, insidious cult of chainsaw worshipping maniacs. I had to wonder if we'd let our religious freedom go too far in this country, or maybe our immigration laws were just too lax."

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 13272
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:37 pm

Postby SeamusMcCool » Fri May 23, 2008 3:23 pm

mutha is fixing
"I'd stumbled into the middle of an evil, insidious cult of chainsaw worshipping maniacs. I had to wonder if we'd let our religious freedom go too far in this country, or maybe our immigration laws were just too lax."

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 13272
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:37 pm

Postby SeamusMcCool » Fri May 23, 2008 3:27 pm

mutha is fixing
"I'd stumbled into the middle of an evil, insidious cult of chainsaw worshipping maniacs. I had to wonder if we'd let our religious freedom go too far in this country, or maybe our immigration laws were just too lax."

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 12418
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Postby Argonheart_Po » Fri May 23, 2008 11:01 pm

Are the forces of freedom directly fighting terrorism


Er....yes....obvioulsy.....whether it be through military or police actions, of course they are - anyone with even a passing interest in the war on terror knows that.

Why don't you?

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 13272
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:37 pm

Postby SeamusMcCool » Fri May 23, 2008 11:03 pm

Argonheart_Po wrote:
Are the forces of freedom directly fighting terrorism


Er....yes....obvioulsy.....whether it be through military or police actions, of course they are - anyone with even a passing interest in the war on terror knows that.

Why don't you?


Clown, the fighting is in Afghanistan and Iraq. That's where the 'terrorists' are going to concentrate their actions.
"I'd stumbled into the middle of an evil, insidious cult of chainsaw worshipping maniacs. I had to wonder if we'd let our religious freedom go too far in this country, or maybe our immigration laws were just too lax."

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 12418
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Postby Argonheart_Po » Fri May 23, 2008 11:11 pm

I'm going to name the countries one by one - and youy can refute at will.

I'll start with The Philipines.

Go ahead.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 12418
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Postby Argonheart_Po » Fri May 23, 2008 11:20 pm

C'mon on Seamus.

Queen Bee
User avatar
Posts: 46884
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 8:48 am
Location: Just south of the North Pole

Re: We Are Winning

Postby northern_goddess » Fri May 23, 2008 11:23 pm

[quote="Electrolyte]My cynical take, however, is that they are less popular not because everyone has realized how wrong and horrible terrorism is, but rather because the terrorists haven't done much lately. They are like a sports team that isn't winning. I wonder if their popularity will crash or soar after the dirty bomb goes off in a city.[/quote]

I agree.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

http://www.fat-pie.com/salad.htm

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 12418
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Postby Argonheart_Po » Fri May 23, 2008 11:24 pm

Why haven't they been able to do anything?

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 13272
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:37 pm

Postby SeamusMcCool » Fri May 23, 2008 11:32 pm

The 'war against terrorism' was taken to Afghanistan and Iraq. Insurgents are still active and still killing with no end in sight. Most of the efforts to fight terrorism are happening here as the US tries to set up some kind of democracy or whatever.

It's a positive that intelligence and police agencies are doing their part in their own countries, but on the grander scale, it's not an indication of terrorist groups losing.

It's ridiculous to say we are winning when terrorist attacks are increasing in the war zone.

Counter insurgencies that manages to survive for as long as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan are by definition winning. It isn't their primary goal to win outright, they are fighting a stronger foe. It's to survive and bleed that foe and wear them down. And regrettably, they are doing a very good job of it. The longer the wars go on, the greater the war weariness in the population.
"I'd stumbled into the middle of an evil, insidious cult of chainsaw worshipping maniacs. I had to wonder if we'd let our religious freedom go too far in this country, or maybe our immigration laws were just too lax."

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 1:19 pm
Location: Michigan USA

Postby Goldfinch » Sat May 24, 2008 12:38 am

I also feel that the Muslims of the world are becoming embarrassed by the slaughter of their own as well. Maybe the religious moderates are having a positive effect. To those that have not read about the non-intelligence about Iraq being involved with Al Qaeda you might refer back to some of the information. He was not. Just think how much more the incidents would have gone down if Bush had not gone into Iraq.
Pax Mentis

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 12418
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Postby Argonheart_Po » Sat May 24, 2008 12:57 am

Seamus - although I realise this is embarrassing for you - do try and concentrate.

The Phillipines. You don't seem to know much about it, so here is some help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines

Start there, and then we will carry on - one by one.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 12418
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Postby Argonheart_Po » Sat May 24, 2008 1:03 am

Seamus - as a short cut, I'll help you with dsome other countries fighting terrorism that you may not have heard of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 12418
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Postby Argonheart_Po » Sat May 24, 2008 1:04 am

Here's another -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

Now that's three - off you go!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 12418
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Postby Argonheart_Po » Sat May 24, 2008 1:11 am

Seamus - c'mon sonny - spit it out!

Sole Guardian of Truth and Sanity
User avatar
Posts: 8083
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: We Are Winning

Postby Electrolyte » Sat May 24, 2008 1:15 am

northern_goddess wrote:[

To partially rebut my point (just to be a contrarian now that I've got someone agreeing with me) I read The Looming Towers and was struck by a couple of descriptions of AQ members who said they were genuinely appalled by 9/11.

But I think that what I said earlier applies to those who danced in the streets that day.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Sat May 24, 2008 1:17 am

there is no doubt that Bush & the Amerigun attack on Iraq & Afghanistan created more terrorists, me toosalade.... and you still have not told me what this has to do with the OP.

Look at the world now and after 9/11... the US chose the wrong way to act and the West is unfortunately losing.
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Sole Guardian of Truth and Sanity
User avatar
Posts: 8083
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Washington DC

Postby Electrolyte » Sat May 24, 2008 1:23 am

Yes Sour Tone. It's part of the American effort to promote death and suffering in the world. We are just like the Nazis. See, the holocaust was nothing special. America does the same thing. So why does everyone hate the Germans? Sieg Heil!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Sat May 24, 2008 2:14 am

great effort, elack, you are clearly a winner...
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Sat May 24, 2008 2:16 am

ToyTone wrote:there is no doubt that Bush & the Amerigun attack on Iraq & Afghanistan created more terrorists, me toosalade.... and you still have not told me what this has to do with the OP.


I can take seriously the idea that invading Iraq drew Al Qaeda to Iraq. I can't take seriously the idea that invading Afghanistan drew it to Afghanistan. It was already using it as a base. What planet are you living on?
21 minutes of adventure!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Sat May 24, 2008 2:25 am

I am never sure that you are serious in your way approaching me, collaterellus,

I think the attack on Afghanistan, like every military activity and presence of any Western entity "creates" terrorists. the attack on A might not have created all that many terrorists in A, but I never said it did.
the attack on A created more anger, and more terrorists..... look at the confrontation in a global perspective... the terrorists surely do.
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Queen Bee
User avatar
Posts: 46884
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 8:48 am
Location: Just south of the North Pole

Postby northern_goddess » Sat May 24, 2008 2:38 am

Also, I'm not sure that I buy into the logic that terrorism is some sort of static activity and therefore if it has been reduced in the last year, that means "we are winning". Electrolyte had a good analogy with the sports team thing, but I also believe you are being too simplistic if you think there is just ONE thing that determines how/what terrorists are doing.

I believe that it's always a combination of things. Bush's WAR on terrorism may, in fact, be having some impact on terrorist groups going underground and concentrating on training and/or another "BIG" hit, rather than an ongoing battle where they may be losing people, momentum, commitment, etc.

Their popularity, for lack of a better word, is probably also a factor.

And the fact that they aren't stupid and, unlike the WAR ON TERRORISM, which has thrown a crazy-ass amount of resources into the ongoing battle, the actual terrorists could be playing smart with their resources and saving up for something bigger.

It's certainly nice to say "Look, we are winning!" but that seems a tad premature and doesn't really look at the big picture. It's more like media messages to make the public feel better than it is anything else.

But really, what do I know? Fuck all, obviously.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

http://www.fat-pie.com/salad.htm

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 1:19 pm
Location: Michigan USA

Postby Goldfinch » Sat May 24, 2008 2:38 am

Coll, you are serious in saying that you don't believe that Iraq was a magnet for terrorist that wanted to kill Americans. The hate in the Arab world (also a number of other Muslim countries and non Muslim) towards the US due to the Arrogant actions in Iraq is pretty well documented in the press through out the world. We (the US) fucked up royally and it will take years to repair the damage to our country and our reputation.
Pax Mentis

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Sat May 24, 2008 2:54 am

I can take seriously the idea that invading Iraq drew Al Qaeda to Iraq.


that is what Coll wrote... Goldfinch, maybe you misread this sentence...
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Sat May 24, 2008 2:54 am

ToyTone wrote:I am never sure that you are serious in your way approaching me, collaterellus,

I think the attack on Afghanistan, like every military activity and presence of any Western entity "creates" terrorists.


Well using that logic so did the inaction of the US and other countries in the 1990s. After all, Al Qaeda got bolder and bigger in its attacks over the 1990s, culminating in 911. You may as well say the belated declaration of war on Germany in 1939 'created' the invasion of numerous countries in the summer of 1940. There were certainly more German soldiers running around other people's countries at that point, and it was chronologically sequential.

The tactic of non-military action had clearly not worked with Al Qaeda, and it could not work while the Taliban were gicing protection to its leaders and training camps. Since Afghanistan was Al Qaeda's base, what exactly do you suggest the US should have done after 9/11? Send Columbo to arrest bin Laden?

the attack on A created more anger, and more terrorists..... look at the confrontation in a global perspective... the terrorists surely do.


And from a global perspective, the terrorists are actually now losing. They have bombed and murdered in numerous countries and alienated many or most of those who said it served the US right when 911 happened. It also put some countries on warning that they couldn't expect to let their countries be used for the training of terrorists with impunity. Only a hardcore of apologists for Al Qaeda's anger remains, some of them apparently being supposed 'liberals' from the west.

What exactly was it about Al Qaeda's 'anger' that has caused them to murder so many innocent Muslims in recent years? I don't think it's anger at all, anymore than the Germans committed the holocaust out of anger. It is down to imperialist ideological ambitions, not just against the west but as much or more so over Muslim countries. Al Qaeda are not identical with disgruntled European 'liberals' in their grievances, no matter how many disgruntled European 'liberals' seem to imagine they are when they talk on their behalf. If you had actually taken notice of bin Laden's communiques over the years you would have grasped that, but of course you already had your root cause, didn't you? 'Ameriguns'
21 minutes of adventure!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Sat May 24, 2008 3:01 am

Goldfinch, I think you misread me. I said the Iraq invasion did draw terrorists there. And in fact 'Iraq' was already drawing terrorists years before the invasion... but not to Iraq, but to Afghanistan. That's because the presence of US troops in Saudi to contain Saddam's Iraq was bin Laden's original grievance. That's often overlooked. Not that it was his only grievance - that list is endless.
21 minutes of adventure!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 17000
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:38 am
Location: Bloody Fuckface

Postby Wellpisser » Sat May 24, 2008 3:14 am

Image

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Sat May 24, 2008 3:25 am

And from a global perspective, the terrorists are actually now losing.

callus = what would you think... how are the number s of terrorists today compared with, let's say a year after 9/11?

callus - you bring in the Holocaust here - why? because I am German?


Al Qaeda are not identical with disgruntled European 'liberals' in their grievances, no matter how many disgruntled European 'liberals' seem to imagine they are when they talk on their behalf. If you had actually taken notice of bin Laden's communiques over the years you would have grasped that, but of course you already had your root cause, didn't you? 'Ameriguns'


what the fuck is this? sounds as crazy as a suheil rant.

I would like to get help on this part. maybe from others as well.
you tell me that AQ are not European liberals.
Callus -
I tell you my discovery..... a tree is not a condom!

ha! beat that!
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 17000
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:38 am
Location: Bloody Fuckface

Postby Wellpisser » Sat May 24, 2008 3:32 am

ToyTone wrote:
And from a global perspective, the terrorists are actually now losing.

callus = what would you think... how are the number s of terrorists today compared with, let's say a year after 9/11?

callus - you bring in the Holocaust here - why? because I am German?


You are? I'd never have guessed.

Al Qaeda are not identical with disgruntled European 'liberals' in their grievances, no matter how many disgruntled European 'liberals' seem to imagine they are when they talk on their behalf. If you had actually taken notice of bin Laden's communiques over the years you would have grasped that, but of course you already had your root cause, didn't you? 'Ameriguns'


what the fuck is this? sounds as crazy as a suheil rant.


Try rereading it, Dieter, it made perfect sense to me. I encourage you to revisit the whole thread, maybe some of that legendary Teutonic efficiency will give you some insight that has thus far eluded you.
I would like to get help on this part. maybe from others as well.
you tell me that AQ are not European liberals.
Callus -
I tell you my discovery..... a tree is not a condom!

ha! beat that!


Easy. A German joke is no laughing matter.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:49 pm

Postby Suheil » Sat May 24, 2008 5:40 am

Collateral Knowledge wrote:
ToyTone wrote:there is no doubt that Bush & the Amerigun attack on Iraq & Afghanistan created more terrorists, me toosalade.... and you still have not told me what this has to do with the OP.


I can take seriously the idea that invading Iraq drew Al Qaeda to Iraq. I can't take seriously the idea that invading Afghanistan drew it to Afghanistan. It was already using it as a base. What planet are you living on?


Then you are into fighting Islam, Arabs and cause Q. No one believes in AQ, Osama or their tactics but few would not fight America's meddling, interference and war. Yes Islam, Arabs, Iraqis Palestinians, Lebanese, Somalis and Sudanese are resisting but it is not under any banner other that the "right to resist".
a man from the east

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Sat May 24, 2008 5:54 am

Wellpisser wrote:
ToyTone wrote:
And from a global perspective, the terrorists are actually now losing.

callus = what would you think... how are the number s of terrorists today compared with, let's say a year after 9/11?

callus - you bring in the Holocaust here - why? because I am German?


You are? I'd never have guessed.

Al Qaeda are not identical with disgruntled European 'liberals' in their grievances, no matter how many disgruntled European 'liberals' seem to imagine they are when they talk on their behalf. If you had actually taken notice of bin Laden's communiques over the years you would have grasped that, but of course you already had your root cause, didn't you? 'Ameriguns'


what the fuck is this? sounds as crazy as a suheil rant.


Try rereading it, Dieter, it made perfect sense to me. I encourage you to revisit the whole thread, maybe some of that legendary Teutonic efficiency will give you some insight that has thus far eluded you.
I would like to get help on this part. maybe from others as well.
you tell me that AQ are not European liberals.
Callus -
I tell you my discovery..... a tree is not a condom!

ha! beat that!


Easy. A German joke is no laughing matter.


wailpisser, you are simply intellectually not capable of understanding what is going on.
you can shout and insult and let your stiff upper lip tremble quite nicely, I give you this.
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:49 pm

Postby Suheil » Sat May 24, 2008 6:11 am

Collateral Knowledge wrote:
ToyTone wrote:I am never sure that you are serious in your way approaching me, collaterellus,

I think the attack on Afghanistan, like every military activity and presence of any Western entity "creates" terrorists.


Well using that logic so did the inaction of the US and other countries in the 1990s. After all, Al Qaeda got bolder and bigger in its attacks over the 1990s, culminating in 911. You may as well say the belated declaration of war on Germany in 1939 'created' the invasion of numerous countries in the summer of 1940. There were certainly more German soldiers running around other people's countries at that point, and it was chronologically sequential.

The tactic of non-military action had clearly not worked with Al Qaeda, and it could not work while the Taliban were gicing protection to its leaders and training camps. Since Afghanistan was Al Qaeda's base, what exactly do you suggest the US should have done after 9/11? Send Columbo to arrest bin Laden?

the attack on A created more anger, and more terrorists..... look at the confrontation in a global perspective... the terrorists surely do.


And from a global perspective, the terrorists are actually now losing. They have bombed and murdered in numerous countries and alienated many or most of those who said it served the US right when 911 happened. It also put some countries on warning that they couldn't expect to let their countries be used for the training of terrorists with impunity. Only a hardcore of apologists for Al Qaeda's anger remains, some of them apparently being supposed 'liberals' from the west.

What exactly was it about Al Qaeda's 'anger' that has caused them to murder so many innocent Muslims in recent years? I don't think it's anger at all, anymore than the Germans committed the holocaust out of anger. It is down to imperialist ideological ambitions, not just against the west but as much or more so over Muslim countries. Al Qaeda are not identical with disgruntled European 'liberals' in their grievances, no matter how many disgruntled European 'liberals' seem to imagine they are when they talk on their behalf. If you had actually taken notice of bin Laden's communiques over the years you would have grasped that, but of course you already had your root cause, didn't you? 'Ameriguns'


You are still living the hype; AQ and Osama are things of the past. The only concrete fact is that the US within Bush's neo-cons has lost the initiative to lead and to win. Let us burry the hatchet and start new.
a man from the east

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Sat May 24, 2008 6:50 am

Toytone, I have offered an argument. You have offered only inept jeers and more importantly not a single counter-point. You can't even see that I was comparing not their day to day activities and ideology (it goes without saying that thhose are not the same), but rather the rationalization processes of some 'liberals' with that of Al Qaeda (that is the bit many 'liberals' appear to struggle with, imagining that terrorists they largely or entirely dislike are exercized by similar concerns to that of supposedly progressive people.

The elastic notion of multiculturalism has been the main area of intersection, and has caused no end of ethical contortions from westerners who believe in liberal values and rights for themselves but can stomach and even defend a lack of those for others with browner skin - even if those people have voted for such rights. See the current thread on Swat Valley, for instance. In the case of Afghanistan there are still plenty griping about 'imposing' ideas like democracy on people who inconveniently turned out to vote in far larger proportions than one would find in any self-satisfied western democracy. It seems the people most comfortable with Afghanistan not having a democracy were the Taliban and a large number of western 'liberals' and leftists, not the majority of the actual Afghan people themselves.

Can we take it you do indeed - as suspected - have no credible counter-argument about what the US should have done about Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after 911? Your weird and flat-falling attempts to joke about posters names is about the only area where you appear to put in any effort in a discussion - I'm still wondering where you got your obsession with Bandra's imaginary trembling lip from. You are the one who appears to post in a state of permanent melt-down.

Regarding the Holocaust, no, the reference was not because you are German but because I had already used the analogy of increased German activity in the months after the UK-French declaration of war in 1939, and I have seen the same confusing of sequence with cause before: namely that the Holocaust wouldn't have happened if the allies hadn't been fighting Germany and that the allies therefore in a sense caused the whole thing (conveniently ignoring the little matter of poland in the first place, just as you have conveniently ignored the AQ presence in Afghanistan and actual 911 attacks). I've even seen more than one person argue that the UK and France caused the deaths of 60 million people by their declaration in September 1939. I've seen similar perverse logic lay the blame for of all deaths and increased enemy activities since September 2001 on, at root, the US. You appear to subscribe to the latter piece of reasoning. Of course, if you don't and you do have a constructive and credible idea of what the US should have done in response to 911, could you say what it actually is?

Suheil, Al Qaeda and bin Laden are indeed partly 'things of the past' now, but that's not down to them losing interest or being mythical, it's down to two things: losing men, and losing support. As for Bush, I do indeed look forward to a better US leader. What I've never bought was that the war against AQ was only or even mainly 'caused' by him. It's roots go deeper, to the 1990s at least, and whoever else had been US president would have had many of the same challenges. Whoever comes next will still have Al Qaeda to deal with in some shape or form. I hope it's a smaller one, for everyone's sake, and that we will see an era of relative peace on all sides in coming years.
21 minutes of adventure!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Sat May 24, 2008 7:04 am

Al Qaeda are not identical with disgruntled European 'liberals' in their grievances, no matter how many disgruntled European 'liberals' seem to imagine they are when they talk on their behalf.


this is "the argument you offered"?

let's break that down...
you think that liberals talk on the behalf of AQ?

lets go very slow... so, please confirm that this above sentence confirms with what you want to say.
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:49 pm

Postby Suheil » Sat May 24, 2008 7:30 am

mutha is fixing
a man from the east

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Sat May 24, 2008 7:48 am

ToyTone wrote:
Al Qaeda are not identical with disgruntled European 'liberals' in their grievances, no matter how many disgruntled European 'liberals' seem to imagine they are when they talk on their behalf.


this is "the argument you offered"?

let's break that down...
you think that liberals talk on the behalf of AQ?

lets go very slow... so, please confirm that this above sentence confirms with what you want to say.


Yes, they 'talk on their behalf' in the same way that they talk on behalf of voters in Afghanistan. That is to say, they ignore what they actually say themselves and explain the concerns or aims or ideas of those people in ways that strangely enough fit their own grievances and ideas even if they don't match the actions or words of the actual people in question. This article by Brendan O'Neill explains how, starting with the example of a book of bin Laden's speeches published in 2005:

Bin Laden's script: ghost-written in the West

Brendan O'Neill
Spiked
December 2005

How long before Osama bin Laden gets invited to something like the Edinburgh Book Festival, to rub shoulders with the likes of Julian Barnes, wolf down canapes and win polite applause from the chattering classes for his poetic ramblings?

One of his statements has already been published as a bona fide opinion piece in that liberal bible the Guardian (under the heading 'Resist the new Rome' in January 2004), and now there's this new book from the leftish literary publishing house Verso. It's a collection of bin Laden's statements from 1994 to 2004 with a handsome and serious jacket cover and discoloured, raggedy-edged pages to give it the look and feel of an instant classic. Reviewers have fawned over its 'magnificent, eloquent, at times even poetic Arabic prose', and claim that it shows the 'author' bin Laden (he's not really the author, being stuck in a cave and all and with few means to receive royalties) as a 'charismatic man of action, an eloquent preacher, a teacher of literature and a resilient, cunning, wonderfully briefed politician' (1).

If it were not for the fact that bin Laden is the most wanted man in the world, and a mass murderer, and possibly dead, and apparently painfully shy (but then, aren't all great poets?), surely the book festival circuit would not be far behind. I can picture him in the Speakers' Tent in Edinburgh, all ethnically coiffured and clutching a copy of this, his life's work, surrounded by wide-eyed journalists inquiring about his writing style and what inspires him to put pen to paper.

How did this happen? Why has Verso brought out a book of bin Laden's statements and why is it being treated so seriously, complete with a promotional push in Waterstone's in Piccadilly, one of the biggest bookstores in Europe? I don't know much about Arabic prose so I will have to suspend my disbelief that bin Laden does it 'magnificently' and 'eloquently'. I do know, however, that something must definitely get lost in translation, because this English end product is turgid, repetitive and irritatingly religious: bin Laden can't get through a sentence without mentioning God, peace, mercy or blessings. Is it that the dumbing down of public life is now so complete that even a loon like bin Laden can get five stars from literary pundits for saying things like 'kill the Americans and seize their money wherever and whenever [you] find them' (December 1998) and 'My kidneys are all right' (November 2001)?

I think there's more to it than that. I reckon the reason why some commentators in the West seem drawn to bin Laden's prose is because at times - and I'm not going to beat around the bush here - he sounds an awful lot like them. Seriously, it is uncanny. What comes across most clearly in this 10 years' worth of rants is the extent to which bin Laden borrows and steals from Western media coverage to justify his nihilistic actions. From his cynical adoption of the Palestinian issue to his explanations for why he okayed 9/11 to his opposition to the American venture in Iraq, virtually everything bin Laden says is a rip-off of arguments and claims made in the mainstream media over here. He has taken the justifications offered by left-leaning pundits for al-Qaeda's existence and actions (in the words of one commentator: 'There is a simple reason why they attack the US: American imperialism') and made them his own (2). And now these pundits have returned the favour by giving him his own book and glowing reviews to boot. It is the unholiest of marriages.

Take Palestine. It is widely assumed that al-Qaeda's violence is primarily motivated by Israel's oppression of the Palestinians and will continue until that issue is resolved. Yet bin Laden's nods to Palestine over the past 10 years tell a different story.

In 1994 he only mentions Palestine as a way of having a pop at the rulers of Saudi Arabia, whom he really despises for 'betraying' Islam and for having the nerve to expel him from Saudi territory (his birthplace) in 1991 and revoke his citizenship in 1994. Bruce Lawrence, editor of this collection, has given bin Laden's first major public pronouncement - made on 29 December 1994 - the heading 'The betrayal of Palestine'; but when you read it, Palestine is cynically mentioned as part of bin Laden's spat with Saudi rulers. The statement is in fact a letter to Chief Mufti bin Baz, the Head of the Council of the ulema in Saudi Arabia, issued by the Advice and Reform Committee set up by bin Laden to 'promote peaceful and constructive reform with regard to the way Arabia is governed' and whose offices were in Dollis Hill, north London (!).

That the editor has headlined the statement 'The betrayal of Palestine' points to a political agenda on his and the publisher's part - even suggesting that their aim is to give consistency and coherence to bin Laden's rants where neither exists.

[...]

[b]Instead of exposing the glaring contradictions in bin Laden's statements - all the better to undermine al-Qaeda's violent outbursts and put the real case for a Palestinian homeland and an end to Western intervention in the Middle East - too many on the left read meaning and consistency into his statements, projecting their own political prejudices on to the ranting of a bearded man in a cave.As a result, what is in truth a disparate nihilistic campaign, an incoherent lashing out against modernity, is given the cloth of 'anti-imperialism' with which to dress up its crimes.

It is no longer enough to see al-Qaeda as the creation of the pro-war right, who blew the group out of proportion and gave it a place on the world stage. Al-Qaeda is also sustained by sections of the anti-war left who provide it with moral and political substance. This collection of bin Laden's statements reveals that al-Qaeda is the bastard child of a fearmongering right and an opportunistic left.


http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAECC.htm[/quote]

As he points out, the effect has come full circle, and over time bin Laden has increasingly come round to the idea of echoing the rationalizing of his own western rationalizers who had been talking over him. They didn't listen to what he actually said, especially at the start, only to what they thought he should have said or might have meant. He now indeed talks about global warming - it goes down well with the nuts in the western 'liberal' press. He just got blank looks from them when he was talking about liberating Indonesia from East Timor (yes, I have got that the right way round).

Now Toytone, I have given you another answer. I am not going to put up with a question and answer session determined by you. I have fetched one stick and that is enough. Put up your own counter argument - a substantiation of your alternative to the US invasion of Afghanistan (do you have one?) would be a start - and don't be ill-mannered.
21 minutes of adventure!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:49 pm

Postby Suheil » Sat May 24, 2008 8:32 am

mutha is fixing
a man from the east

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Sat May 24, 2008 8:54 am

Callus - I just wanted to make sure I got you right. infact I did.
to your point "liberals talk on behalf of AQ" I have already given my view.

a tree is not a condom.

and, do not worry, I know now were to put you and don't need more questions.
your alternative to the US invasion of Afghanistan


no invasion.
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Next

Return to Famous Dishes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest