A New False Flag?

phattonez said:

I'll be honest, it was long and I didn't have time to respond to the entire diatribe.

Here's a pretty long piece in Vanity Fair which goes into pretty good detail about Michael Scheuer and 9/11. It's enlightening, I hope.

The Path to 9/11 | Vanity Fair

Click to expand...

I've read the article, and I know who Michael Scheuer is, and that is not an answer.

Sherman123 said:

I've read the article, and I know who Michael Scheuer is, and that is not an answer.

Click to expand...

You read the article that quickly? Interesting, because I'm still reading it. Bin Laden tried to recruit on other things, but in the end the only thing that was successful was talking about Western powers intervening in their countries.

phattonez said:

There is no such thing as targeted attacks, at least not with our military, and that's what gets terrorist groups riled up. The killing of their innocents makes them angry, much like the killing of our innocents made us angry.

.

Click to expand...

Really? No such thing? Tell that to the Somali Pirates on a rocking life raft in the middle of the ocean...oh wait...better just tell the hostage instead. He lived.

phattonez said:

You read the article that quickly? Interesting, because I'm still reading it. Bin Laden tried to recruit on other things, but in the end the only thing that was successful was talking about Western powers intervening in their countries.

Click to expand...

I've previously read it, hence my statement that I am familiar with him and his publications.

Edit: I've noticed that you have directly avoided the points made by several people in this discussion so far.

stonewall50 said:

Really? No such thing? Tell that to the Somali Pirates on a rocking life raft in the middle of the ocean...oh wait...better just tell the hostage instead. He lived.

Click to expand...

Tell that to the 100,000 dead Iraqis from the Iraq War. How about the dead in Afghanistan? The dead in Somalia, the dead in Vietnam. I can go on and on and on.

phattonez said:

Tell that to the 100,000 dead Iraqis from the Iraq War. How about the dead in Afghanistan? The dead in Somalia, the dead in Vietnam. I can go on and on and on.

Click to expand...

Stop creating a strawman and diverting. You said there are no such things as targeted attacks with our military. Stone presented a clear example of a targeted military strike. Your response was to talk about the casualties of a variety of different wars you have lumped together. How on earth does that qualify as an answer?

Sherman123 said:

I've previously read it, hence my statement that I am familiar with him and his publications.

Click to expand...

And you disagree with his conclusions, I presume? Why?

Sherman123 said:

Stop creating a strawman and diverting. You said there are no such things as targeted attacks with our military. Stone presented a clear example of a targeted military strike. Your response was to talk about the casualties of a variety of different wars you have lumped together. How on earth does that qualify as an answer?

Click to expand...

Because that operation is clearly different than most activities that the military in engaged in. I'm thinking here mostly of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the drone attacks in Pakistan and other countries.

phattonez said:

And you disagree with his conclusions, I presume? Why?

Click to expand...

I stated them in part in my initial response. The one you said you didn't read. If you want to take about Scheuer we can, but that isn't the point at hand and I would like a reply.

That being said I've met him, and I'm quite familiar with him, and I believe that while a talented individual he is vastly outweighed by other opinions, even from within his own task-force, which dramatically reduces his credibility. Furthermore the Scheuer of today is not the one of even 5 years ago, and his opinions have become more brazen, bizarre, and ideological as he has been met with skepticism and criticism by those within the analyst and IC community. There is also a plethora of open source information that does not square with many of his claims.

People who draw from single sources and have an axe to grind will usually pull out his name and Colonel Wilkerson as their alternative narrative. Which is fine as far as creating a fuller picture is concerned. But they are drowned out by the legions of analysts, agents, officials, etc that say and have written contrary things. Most tend to go with that and for good reason.

phattonez said:

Because that operation is clearly different than most activities that the military in engaged in. I'm thinking here mostly of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the drone attacks in Pakistan and other countries.

Click to expand...

Afghanistan and Iraq are wars, not operations. Saying the US military does not carry out targeted strikes is not refuted by citing "Well what about the Iraq War". The point being that it is obvious that the US frequently carries out targeted strikes. Drones are also an example of an attempt to refine attacks and targeting.

phattonez said:

You read the article that quickly? Interesting, because I'm still reading it. Bin Laden tried to recruit on other things, but in the end the only thing that was successful was talking about Western powers intervening in their countries.

Click to expand...

Have you ever seen the documentary: "The World Without Us" ? It is funny. People who hate it seem to want to demonize it as "propaganda for the US." What people seem to leave out about our "evil military imperialism" is how important it is for world stability.

The world hates us, but any time there is a geneocide the ONLY power capable of stopping it is the United States. That is it. Our "evil interventions" in places like Yugoslavia are justified because NOBODY else was going to stop it. We waited how long for the Bosnian conflict? 2 years. Look at what happened. Look at Rwanda. How long did we wait for Kosovo? Why do I bring all that up? You need to understand that United State Military intervention DOES stop geneocides.

Now does that mean that we should? Well you can argue one way or the other. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to call us out on intervention, you can NEVER cry foul when thousands of people die because we don't intervene. It doesn't work that way.

Now what do you think would happen to South Korea without United States troops and tech there? Certainly the 30K US military personel are a factor to consider? What about our Aircraft carriers? You do know that these shape world policy correct? These keep sea lanes open. Do you understand why China is pushing for a navy? Certainly global power seeking is part of the United States game plan. We do want to shape the world with OUR military. The question isn't are we trying to monopolize world power, we are. The question is: would it bother you if ANOTHER world power tried to do that? Soviet Union tried. What about China's influence in the East? Sea trade over there. How big a deal is it to keep sea lanes open?

All this isn't propaganda. It is reality. The United States military and OUR interests are to be considered whenever we come into someone's neighborhood. It is far better to do that than us have to cater to someone else's.

phattonez said:

Tell that to the 100,000 dead Iraqis from the Iraq War. How about the dead in Afghanistan? The dead in Somalia, the dead in Vietnam. I can go on and on and on.

Click to expand...

Sure you can. But to claim that "precision strikes" are impossible is a little silly. They are and you know it. 1 bullet can be pretty darn precise. As a matter of fact United States aircraft carriers can drive into certain seas to shape global policies. But let's ignore target attacks at a nation's policy making. Let's talk about predator drones. Those are pretty darn precise if you give it a little time, do some background research, and if you have a ground assett in the area that can lase a target you can pretty much bet that the only casulties will be enemy personel/terrorists. A special ops mission if you can keep the press or google or wikileaks from blowing the lid off it, is pretty darn precise. Actually that was the somali boat pirate thing. All navy seals. Bin Laden. So on.

Now if you want to keep talking about the "dead" in all these places. Let me ask you. Do you think that we should have gone after the parties responsible for 9/11? Or do you think we should have taken responsibility and said...we had it coming...like some abused spouse? Remember that there were multiple attacks on the US by Al Queda. If we were going to actually go after them...that was going to require an actual assault on at some point. And it wouldn't be an assault on some building in the United States. If it was that we would have sent im some podunk police force, not the navy seals. It would require actually going into another nation.

Look if you want to be upset at the CIA because you need a bond villian in the world, but if you understand anything about military strategy then you know that intelligence is the game. Intelligence is spying. It means invading a nations privacy. It is dealing with the deepest darkest secrets of a nation/enemy. And if your enemy is...say...al queda...a group of terrorists who do not opperate from a single state, but instead can go anywhere to set up a headquarters...you WILL have to go to them...even if that just means observing them in their natural habbitat. IF you want take care of them...that means killing them on sovereign soil that ain't ours. So if you believe that the people who committed 9/11 were Al Queda and it wasn't an inside job...then I really hope you think we should have done something. You can hindsight guess the actions, but we should have been in Afghanistan.

Sherman123 said:

Afghanistan and Iraq are wars, not operations. Saying the US military does not carry out targeted strikes is not refuted by citing "Well what about the Iraq War". The point being that it is obvious that the US frequently carries out targeted strikes. Drones are also an example of an attempt to refine attacks and targeting.

Click to expand...

But with drone attacks the government is always responsible for what is brazenly called "collateral damage", or what it actually is, the murder of innocents.

So yes, I'll concede that it is possible for the military to engage in targeted attacks. That said, they don't seem to use them much.

stonewall50 said:

Have you ever seen the documentary: "The World Without Us" ? It is funny. People who hate it seem to want to demonize it as "propaganda for the US." What people seem to leave out about our "evil military imperialism" is how important it is for world stability.

The world hates us, but any time there is a geneocide the ONLY power capable of stopping it is the United States. That is it. Our "evil interventions" in places like Yugoslavia are justified because NOBODY else was going to stop it. We waited how long for the Bosnian conflict? 2 years. Look at what happened. Look at Rwanda. How long did we wait for Kosovo? Why do I bring all that up? You need to understand that United State Military intervention DOES stop geneocides.

Now does that mean that we should? Well you can argue one way or the other. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to call us out on intervention, you can NEVER cry foul when thousands of people die because we don't intervene. It doesn't work that way.

Click to expand...

In theory intervening in an atrocity is perfectly justified. However, all of the messy detail usually muck it up. For instance, when the government gets involved innocents seem to always get killed. Then, once you get those responsible for the atrocity taken care of, you have the messy issue of who to support. That can also make things messy (this is especially pertinent in Libya, Egypt, etc.).

So yes, in theory it could be justified, but usually what comes after is not so clear. Funny how that seems to always get ignored until after the invasion has begun.

Now what do you think would happen to South Korea without United States troops and tech there? Certainly the 30K US military personel are a factor to consider? What about our Aircraft carriers? You do know that these shape world policy correct? These keep sea lanes open. Do you understand why China is pushing for a navy? Certainly global power seeking is part of the United States game plan. We do want to shape the world with OUR military. The question isn't are we trying to monopolize world power, we are. The question is: would it bother you if ANOTHER world power tried to do that? Soviet Union tried. What about China's influence in the East? Sea trade over there. How big a deal is it to keep sea lanes open?

All this isn't propaganda. It is reality. The United States military and OUR interests are to be considered whenever we come into someone's neighborhood. It is far better to do that than us have to cater to someone else's.

Click to expand...

There is quite a difference, though, between protecting shipping lanes and taking out leaders in the Middle East. You and I both should be able to recognize that.

stonewall50 said:

Sure you can. But to claim that "precision strikes" are impossible is a little silly. They are and you know it. 1 bullet can be pretty darn precise. As a matter of fact United States aircraft carriers can drive into certain seas to shape global policies. But let's ignore target attacks at a nation's policy making. Let's talk about predator drones. Those are pretty darn precise if you give it a little time, do some background research, and if you have a ground assett in the area that can lase a target you can pretty much bet that the only casulties will be enemy personel/terrorists. A special ops mission if you can keep the press or google or wikileaks from blowing the lid off it, is pretty darn precise. Actually that was the somali boat pirate thing. All navy seals. Bin Laden. So on.

Click to expand...

Drones are fine if they're only used precisely and only against those that are known to be guilty, and only the guilty will be hurt, but that's a lot to prove, isn't it?

Now if you want to keep talking about the "dead" in all these places. Let me ask you. Do you think that we should have gone after the parties responsible for 9/11? Or do you think we should have taken responsibility and said...we had it coming...like some abused spouse? Remember that there were multiple attacks on the US by Al Queda. If we were going to actually go after them...that was going to require an actual assault on at some point. And it wouldn't be an assault on some building in the United States. If it was that we would have sent im some podunk police force, not the navy seals. It would require actually going into another nation.

Click to expand...

It's a false dichotomy. We should have recognized that our government's intervention in the Middle East was the main reason why we were attacked, and then we should have gone after the perpetrators rather than getting distracted by nation building in Afghanistan.

Look if you want to be upset at the CIA because you need a bond villian in the world, but if you understand anything about military strategy then you know that intelligence is the game. Intelligence is spying. It means invading a nations privacy. It is dealing with the deepest darkest secrets of a nation/enemy. And if your enemy is...say...al queda...a group of terrorists who do not opperate from a single state, but instead can go anywhere to set up a headquarters...you WILL have to go to them...even if that just means observing them in their natural habbitat. IF you want take care of them...that means killing them on sovereign soil that ain't ours. So if you believe that the people who committed 9/11 were Al Queda and it wasn't an inside job...then I really hope you think we should have done something. You can hindsight guess the actions, but we should have been in Afghanistan.

Click to expand...

But we should have left when the job was done. We never defined success before we went in there.

phattonez said:

But with drone attacks the government is always responsible for what is brazenly called "collateral damage", or what it actually is, the murder of innocents.

So yes, I'll concede that it is possible for the military to engage in targeted attacks. That said, they don't seem to use them much.

Click to expand...

You are claiming collateral damage always occurs on drone strikes? With what evidence? Furthermore even with the civilian casualties that sometimes result from drone strikes, it is far more precise than any other kind of direct military action short of actual insertions and raids and has resulted in relatively low civilian losses.

phattonez said:

What's loony toon? Is there anything factually wrong there? I put forward the idea that this may be a false flag to bring the US into Iran, and I showed the precedent for this kind of deception. I never said that this definitely was to bring the US into Iran or Libya, but the US government has wanted to go into Iran for a while now.

Click to expand...

LOLOLOL...........:2wave:

phattonez said:

Paranoia about foreign policy?

Click to expand...

yes, paranoia. of the UN black helicopters and a secret highway means giving up US sovereignty to Mexico variety. Paul is a nut.

Please, why have you been duped into believing that terrorists are irrational actors?

Click to expand...

I have never argued that they are not - and where they seem to be, I would argue it is due to mirror imaging. Which, of course, is the same fallacy that the Paulites make when they describe what will happen in the face of a worldwide US withdrawal.

Do you know why we were attacked on 9/11? Al-Qaeda told us exactly why

Click to expand...

That is incorrect. They told us why they want people to believe why. They've also announced at various times that their Jihad is to stop us from effecting their educational systems and causing Global Warming.

Why is it that those who are always the quickest to look with a jaundiced eye at what our own, relatively transparent government tells us are always also the quickest to accept at face value what psychopathic foreign would-be-dictators who lie as a matter of doctrine tell them?

It's not because they hate our freedoms or our way of life or any nonsense like that.

Click to expand...

actually it sort of is - more specifically it is not simply our freedoms and our wealth that they hate, but the attractiveness and power of it.

It's because of our foreign policy, specifically our sanctions against Iraq that killed 100,000 people, mostly children (sound familiar?).

Click to expand...

That is incorrect. Firstly, when Iraq attacked Kuwait, OBL offered his organizations' services to the Saudi Royal Family to attack Iraq. They chose to go with the US option instead - Al Qaeda by and large couldn't have cared less about Iraqis (they were certainly willing to kill plenty of them on their own), they were humiliated and upset at having been publicly scorned by the Saudi Royal Family. Secondly, the decision to turn Sunni Islamist Fundamentalism towards the "Second Satan" occurred in the 80's.

But the notion that Al-Qaeda and company are upset about Iraqi children is laughable.

How many times have we been lied to about the foreign policy? The Gulf of Tonkin Affair was the most obvious

Click to expand...

you are violating Occam's Razor and ascribing to evil what is best explained by simple incompetence.

Do you imagine that the Federal Government is some kind of omnicompetent entity? If so, then how do you justify your beliefs that their role in the domestic sector should be reduced?

The Lusitania? It had arms on board.

Click to expand...

yup, and that was public knowledge as well - the Germans advertised for weeks advising Americans not to go aboard.

Pearl Harbor? The government knew that the oil embargo and lend-lease were going to lead to Japan attacking.

Click to expand...

A) no they didn't, although that was one leading assessment. the government hoped that the embargo would cause Japan to halt its' offensive in northern China, and regardless was not willing to aid that offensive by giving it oil to run on.

B) those who thought that Japan might attack assumed that they would attack the Philippines, Guam, etc; no one thought that the Japanese would be stupid enough to attack Pearl Harbor for the simple enough reason that that is where we kept our greatest contingent of Battleships, and the Navy still thought that the Battleship was the Fleet Center of Gravity. Pearl Harbor was a surprise not just because of location, but also because of the success of the type of attack.

The reason the world hates us is because of the foreign policy.

Click to expand...

That is a simplistic notion that ill-fits any accurate discussion of international relations. You might as well say that the world hates us because we have free speech, or that the world hates us because we dominate them at Basketball. Many actors do not like portions of our foreign policy and prefer other portions of our foreign policy. China, for example, hates that we are protecting smaller nations in its' desired zone of influence from their coercion, but appreciates that we help keep shipping lanes open. Nor does "the world hate us" - you are mistaking the protestors for the world. I have traveled thus far across the Pacific and Middle East, and I can only think of a couple of places where I have run into "being hated" for being American. The vast majority of people that I have run into are instead either indifferent, or excited to have a chance to practice their english.

It is not intrinsic evil and it has nothing to do with religion. Osama bin Laden was never able to recruit on religion.

Click to expand...

Both of those statements are false. It has quite a lot in the Middle East to do with religion - because Islam is the starting point for everything else in the Middle East. Claiming that Islamist Fundamentalism has nothing to do with Islam is (again) simplistic to the point of foolishness. It is wishful thinking that has been demonstrated to be absurdly false poignantly well in the past few months. I would argue that it is not driven only by religion - but religion shapes it, breathes into it, and marks how it will be expressed.

He tried it and it didn't work.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah? Tell me more about how Pakistani Madrassa's don't exist. :roll:

You seem also to have "Islamist Fundamentalism" confused with "Osama bin Laden".

What worked was reminding people about the US meddling in their lands and killing their people. Osama bin Laden was not an irrational actor. Let me say that again, Osama bin Laden was not an irrational actor!

Click to expand...

No one has claimed that he is. You are arguing against a strawman.

Michael Scheuer knows this better than anyone and he understands why we are under attack.

Click to expand...

:roll: yeah. and Rachel Carson is an eco-saint that saved us all.

Until we come to grips with the fact that it is our military expeditions that cause blowback, and until we stop calling those who point this out "apologists" and applying such "nah-nah-nah can't hear you" logic, we will be threatened and unsafe.

Click to expand...

no one has claimed we don't see blowback. it is simply that said blowback A) often acceptable given the achievements available to policy and B) almost never a sole source for non-state hostile networks.

I can only urge you to seriously consider it and not shrug it aside instantly.

Click to expand...

Dude. You read this stuff because for you it's an intellectual hobby. But this is my job.

phattonez said:

In theory intervening in an atrocity is perfectly justified. However, all of the messy detail usually muck it up. For instance, when the government gets involved innocents seem to always get killed. Then, once you get those responsible for the atrocity taken care of, you have the messy issue of who to support. That can also make things messy (this is especially pertinent in Libya, Egypt, etc.).

So yes, in theory it could be justified, but usually what comes after is not so clear. Funny how that seems to always get ignored until after the invasion has begun.
.

Click to expand...

That is all himming and hawing. You are either on the side that you need to stop geneocides/attrocities, or the side that says forget them it is their problem. Honestly I can feel a pull to either side. You still cannot have it both ways.

If you are saying the messy details that muck it up are a problem and want to be AGAINST intervention that is great. You picked a side. Keep in mind that you picked the side that says we don't need to get involved in any conflict where we are protecting our assests or allies assets, etc. It is a good position. Be proud of it. We wouldn't run the risk of creating many of those taliban types. We wouldn't pick the wrong parties to lead nations that we level. It IS a good position. We shouldn't put our people in jeopardy and waste billions. That side means though...YOU CANNOT bring up Rwanda as a failed policy. It is a place where we really couldn't do anything. Boots on ground does nothing. We shouldn't cut off supply because innocents could die. Isolationism. You gotta understand that this position condemns people to death. Lots of death. It doesn't matter how mucky it isn't, people still died when a few humvees with mounted .50s parked in the right places could have stopped.

IF you want to take the other side I understand too. Stop geneocides. Great position. Use our military to intervene in places where bad guys exist. Maybe get a little CIA involvement. Toss in some security and relative stability of the region too. Especially because we control the outcome. We know where it goes. The PROBLEM is that this position condemns people to death too. You kill the bad guys. Of course that is easy at first. The guys mowing down starving people over bags of rice because their warlord told them that the people that are slightly darker, slightly lighter, or slightly a little less this way or that. Easy. The guys in white robes meeting with suicide bombers? Yep. Blow them up too. Of course every once in a while a civillian gets a little close. Price you pay. Mistakes happen. I can barely work a friggin remote, let alone a $4.5 billion dollar radio controlled predator drone with missles that could have gotten PhDs. BUT...you kill bad guys. You stop geneocides and provide some stability and peace. People get food. Maybe not much, but they get it.


Do you get my message? You can pick the side to stop geneocides or not stop them. I don't care which. They both have valid points. I have a degree in history and have studied and seen the consequences of both. If you are going to armchair quarterback the issues, you need to pick a side. You cannot condemn one side and then all of a sudden say that same side was right later because the outcome was bad. There are consequences both good and bad from BOTH sides of the internvention table. You need to pick one. As it stands teh United States is currently the only power capable of true intervention and without US the UN is toothless.

And protecting shipping lanes is quite important btw. So is killing the right ME leaders. Did you know that had we not stopped Sadam in Kuwait in the 90s he would have moved to Saudi Arabia next, and most likely would have won. Then he would have controlled 40% of the world oil supply. A policy of shipping lanes is still a policy of intervention. If we try to protect other nation's vessels we are intervening. We are supporting one nation over another in the interest of capitalism and free trade (and someone is going to hate us for that).

Bottom line I guess we can't win.

cpwill said:

yes, paranoia. of the UN black helicopters and a secret highway means giving up US sovereignty to Mexico variety. Paul is a nut.



I have never argued that they are not - and where they seem to be, I would argue it is due to mirror imaging. Which, of course, is the same fallacy that the Paulites make when they describe what will happen in the face of a worldwide US withdrawal.



That is incorrect. They told us why they want people to believe why. They've also announced at various times that their Jihad is to stop us from effecting their educational systems and causing Global Warming.

Why is it that those who are always the quickest to look with a jaundiced eye at what our own, relatively transparent government tells us are always also the quickest to accept at face value what psychopathic foreign would-be-dictators who lie as a matter of doctrine tell them?



actually it sort of is - more specifically it is not simply our freedoms and our wealth that they hate, but the attractiveness and power of it.



That is incorrect. Firstly, when Iraq attacked Kuwait, OBL offered his organizations' services to the Saudi Royal Family to attack Iraq. They chose to go with the US option instead - Al Qaeda by and large couldn't have cared less about Iraqis (they were certainly willing to kill plenty of them on their own), they were humiliated and upset at having been publicly scorned by the Saudi Royal Family. Secondly, the decision to turn Sunni Islamist Fundamentalism towards the "Second Satan" occurred in the 80's.

But the notion that Al-Qaeda and company are upset about Iraqi children is laughable.



you are violating Occam's Razor and ascribing to evil what is best explained by simple incompetence.

Do you imagine that the Federal Government is some kind of omnicompetent entity? If so, then how do you justify your beliefs that their role in the domestic sector should be reduced?



yup, and that was public knowledge as well - the Germans advertised for weeks advising Americans not to go aboard.



A) no they didn't, although that was one leading assessment. the government hoped that the embargo would cause Japan to halt its' offensive in northern China, and regardless was not willing to aid that offensive by giving it oil to run on.

B) those who thought that Japan might attack assumed that they would attack the Philippines, Guam, etc; no one thought that the Japanese would be stupid enough to attack Pearl Harbor for the simple enough reason that that is where we kept our greatest contingent of Battleships, and the Navy still thought that the Battleship was the Fleet Center of Gravity. Pearl Harbor was a surprise not just because of location, but also because of the success of the type of attack.



That is a simplistic notion that ill-fits any accurate discussion of international relations. You might as well say that the world hates us because we have free speech, or that the world hates us because we dominate them at Basketball. Many actors do not like portions of our foreign policy and prefer other portions of our foreign policy. China, for example, hates that we are protecting smaller nations in its' desired zone of influence from their coercion, but appreciates that we help keep shipping lanes open. Nor does "the world hate us" - you are mistaking the protestors for the world. I have traveled thus far across the Pacific and Middle East, and I can only think of a couple of places where I have run into "being hated" for being American. The vast majority of people that I have run into are instead either indifferent, or excited to have a chance to practice their english.



Both of those statements are false. It has quite a lot in the Middle East to do with religion - because Islam is the starting point for everything else in the Middle East. Claiming that Islamist Fundamentalism has nothing to do with Islam is (again) simplistic to the point of foolishness. It is wishful thinking that has been demonstrated to be absurdly false poignantly well in the past few months. I would argue that it is not driven only by religion - but religion shapes it, breathes into it, and marks how it will be expressed.



Oh yeah? Tell me more about how Pakistani Madrassa's don't exist. :roll:

You seem also to have "Islamist Fundamentalism" confused with "Osama bin Laden".



No one has claimed that he is. You are arguing against a strawman.



:roll: yeah. and Rachel Carson is an eco-saint that saved us all.



no one has claimed we don't see blowback. it is simply that said blowback A) often acceptable given the achievements available to policy and B) almost never a sole source for non-state hostile networks.



Dude. You read this stuff because for you it's an intellectual hobby. But this is my job.

Click to expand...

Don't expect a real reply.

cpwill said:

yes, paranoia. of the UN black helicopters and a secret highway means giving up US sovereignty to Mexico variety. Paul is a nut.

Click to expand...

A nut who was right about terrorist attacks in 1999 and a housing crisis in 2003.

I have never argued that they are not - and where they seem to be, I would argue it is due to mirror imaging. Which, of course, is the same fallacy that the Paulites make when they describe what will happen in the face of a worldwide US withdrawal.

Click to expand...

How many attacks has Switzerland had?

That is incorrect. They told us why they want people to believe why. They've also announced at various times that their Jihad is to stop us from effecting their educational systems and causing Global Warming.

Why is it that those who are always the quickest to look with a jaundiced eye at what our own, relatively transparent government tells us are always also the quickest to accept at face value what psychopathic foreign would-be-dictators who lie as a matter of doctrine tell them?

Click to expand...

And that is exactly why. Bin Laden tried to recruit on religion. It never worked. He recruited by exploiting US sanctions on Iraq.

actually it sort of is - more specifically it is not simply our freedoms and our wealth that they hate, but the attractiveness and power of it.

Click to expand...

They hate the fact that our government uses that power to bully around their homeland.

That is incorrect. Firstly, when Iraq attacked Kuwait, OBL offered his organizations' services to the Saudi Royal Family to attack Iraq. They chose to go with the US option instead - Al Qaeda by and large couldn't have cared less about Iraqis (they were certainly willing to kill plenty of them on their own), they were humiliated and upset at having been publicly scorned by the Saudi Royal Family. Secondly, the decision to turn Sunni Islamist Fundamentalism towards the "Second Satan" occurred in the 80's.

But the notion that Al-Qaeda and company are upset about Iraqi children is laughable.

Click to expand...

Bin Laden has videos decrying the hundred thousand children that died from Iraqi sanctions. Are you going to sit there and claim that the death of at least tens of thousands of Iraqi children did not engender hatred for the US?

you are violating Occam's Razor and ascribing to evil what is best explained by simple incompetence.

Do you imagine that the Federal Government is some kind of omnicompetent entity? If so, then how do you justify your beliefs that their role in the domestic sector should be reduced?

Click to expand...

It was certainly exploited, was it not? They are very powerful and very smart, and willing to use violence, but also self-centered and willing to steal and hurt me (not the same as a business). That is why I want them to have no role in my life.

yup, and that was public knowledge as well - the Germans advertised for weeks advising Americans not to go aboard.

Click to expand...

Yet it was used as an excuse to go to war.

A) no they didn't, although that was one leading assessment. the government hoped that the embargo would cause Japan to halt its' offensive in northern China, and regardless was not willing to aid that offensive by giving it oil to run on.

B) those who thought that Japan might attack assumed that they would attack the Philippines, Guam, etc; no one thought that the Japanese would be stupid enough to attack Pearl Harbor for the simple enough reason that that is where we kept our greatest contingent of Battleships, and the Navy still thought that the Battleship was the Fleet Center of Gravity. Pearl Harbor was a surprise not just because of location, but also because of the success of the type of attack.

Click to expand...

Please, that's what they say. Instituting an embargo against one side and lend-lease for the other means you're a non-neutral actor. That's what got the US, that was insulated by two oceans, into a war that even Switzerland did not get into.

That is a simplistic notion that ill-fits any accurate discussion of international relations. You might as well say that the world hates us because we have free speech, or that the world hates us because we dominate them at Basketball. Many actors do not like portions of our foreign policy and prefer other portions of our foreign policy. China, for example, hates that we are protecting smaller nations in its' desired zone of influence from their coercion, but appreciates that we help keep shipping lanes open. Nor does "the world hate us" - you are mistaking the protestors for the world. I have traveled thus far across the Pacific and Middle East, and I can only think of a couple of places where I have run into "being hated" for being American. The vast majority of people that I have run into are instead either indifferent, or excited to have a chance to practice their english.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between the US government and American citizens.

Both of those statements are false. It has quite a lot in the Middle East to do with religion - because Islam is the starting point for everything else in the Middle East. Claiming that Islamist Fundamentalism has nothing to do with Islam is (again) simplistic to the point of foolishness. It is wishful thinking that has been demonstrated to be absurdly false poignantly well in the past few months. I would argue that it is not driven only by religion - but religion shapes it, breathes into it, and marks how it will be expressed.

Click to expand...

I didn't say Islamist Fundamentalism. I was talking about how Osama bin Laden was able to recruit. He could not do it based on religion, he had to exploit hatred for the US because of the government's foreign policy.

Oh yeah? Tell me more about how Pakistani Madrassa's don't exist. :roll:

You seem also to have "Islamist Fundamentalism" confused with "Osama bin Laden".

Click to expand...

You're the one confusing the two. I'm not talking about the broad subject of Islamist Fundamentalism. I'm talking about how Osama bin Laden was able to recruit.

No one has claimed that he is. You are arguing against a strawman.

Click to expand...

Then he attacked the US because of our government's actions.

:roll: yeah. and Rachel Carson is an eco-saint that saved us all.

Click to expand...

He warnings went ignored.

no one has claimed we don't see blowback. it is simply that said blowback A) often acceptable given the achievements available to policy and B) almost never a sole source for non-state hostile networks.

Click to expand...

Blowback is acceptable given the achievements? Tell that to the people of Switzerland.

Dude. You read this stuff because for you it's an intellectual hobby. But this is my job.

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that you can just ignore my arguments. Maybe you should consider your biases.

I think you're correct about some of your stuff, but the reasons, intents and conclusions don't seem to match the actions taken. Rooseveldt knew about Pearl Harbor, but why would he have wanted that to happen, what was the benefit to himself? The reasons and conclusions must be clear and inescapable. Anyone who knows anything about demolitions and has watched the controlled demolitions of the WTC buildings, particularly Bldg. 7, knows that those buildings did not come down because of being struck by airplanes, but why? All we have now are one word answers like "Oil" or "Bilderburgs", things that don't provide any illumination.

I don't think there is much chance that the liberals on here are ever going to accept that Obama is carrying on the work of Bush, Clinton and Bush I before that. Never, never, never. They prefer to ridicule rather than to know. They prefer labels, talking points and free phones to any search for knowledge or understanding.

Ray410 said:

I think you're correct about some of your stuff, but the reasons, intents and conclusions don't seem to match the actions taken. Rooseveldt knew about Pearl Harbor, but why would he have wanted that to happen, what was the benefit to himself? The reasons and conclusions must be clear and inescapable.

Click to expand...

There was non-neutrality from the start, so it was inevitable that the US would be dragged into the war. And remember, the state loves war. It's the best method for aggrandizement of the state.

Anyone who knows anything about demolitions and has watched the controlled demolitions of the WTC buildings, particularly Bldg. 7, knows that those buildings did not come down because of being struck by airplanes, but why? All we have now are one word answers like "Oil" or "Bilderburgs", things that don't provide any illumination.

Click to expand...

I'm not going into that territory, but I do know that the attack was exploited to go to wars that weren't related to the attacks. The attackers came from Saudi Arabia, so invade Afghanistan?

I don't think there is much chance that the liberals on here are ever going to accept that Obama is carrying on the work of Bush, Clinton and Bush I before that. Never, never, never. They prefer to ridicule rather than to know. They prefer labels, talking points and free phones to any search for knowledge or understanding.

Click to expand...

For sure, there is not much difference between Obama and Bush.

Gina said:

Because there is no evidence President Obama wants to invade Iran or Libya.

Click to expand...

Agreed. As I've posted before the one good thing, for me personally, about Pres Obama being re-elected is that I know he would be a lot slower to get involved in another Middle East war than Mitt Romney. He proved that with the way he handled Libya initially. Of course, I could be wrong about that. And that's why I voted for neither of them.

MarineTpartier said:

Agreed. As I've posted before the one good thing, for me personally, about Pres Obama being re-elected is that I know he would be a lot slower to get involved in another Middle East war than Mitt Romney. He proved that with the way he handled Libya initially. Of course, I could be wrong about that. And that's why I voted for neither of them.

Click to expand...

Less willing, sure, but that doesn't mean not willing.