What a Letter

    • Gold Top Dog
    inne,

    Having been in a war and actually questioned motives and the definition of terorism i know exactly where you are coming from.  I actually said something quite similar to an officer after he gave a lecture.  I recieved two weeks of kitchen duty because HE couldn't answer my question.

    What the war has done, though, has disrupted the organizations and organizational ability of state sponsored and large organizations and rendered them unable to effectively pull off another 9/11 type of attack.

    And to those that say the "attacks weren't real."  I live about 12 miles away from the Pentagon, my former roommate was across the street and watched the plane fly into the building.  He was one of the first responders as he's a former Soldier in the Ceremonial Old Guard (the guys that "guard" the Pres, and foriegn dignitaries.)

    I realize that the US isn't the world, however, the US is the central reason for the jihadist movement to begin with.  The jihadists don't like freedom, they don't like capitalism, they don't like that women in the US can work, that they can wear shorts, or s, or thongs.  They don't like that a woman, in the US, could even be their boss.  So any chance at all to strike the US, whether it's the US military or the citizenry will give them hope and purchase.  There are those in this country and across the world that will continue to preach and hatred of the US, and freedom and capitalism and everything that you or I or others hold in high esteem. 

    Whether the US withdraws or sustains the fight, that jihad will continue.

    Not to entirely disrespect your source material but both are from known leftist entities.  The Times quotes "A classified" report.  If it was a classified report then how would they obtain access to it? 

    To clarify my position on this "war" which I consider a sham from a tactical perspective:  I was all for the ousting of Saddam.  I was all for the routing of the Taliban.  I am not all for a long sustained occupation of an enemy land.  The war is a sham because they had NO idea how they were going to exit.  The reasons for the war were good, even if based upon faulty intelligence.
    • Gold Top Dog
    You think the NIE is a "leftist entity"? The report has been declassified and I provided a link to it. You can read it yourself. This is a description of what the National Intelligence Estimate is:

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

    I completely disagree with your assessment of the source of this conflict. I would highly recommend reading Robert Fisk and Tariq Ali's work for a different perspective.

    I also think the reasoning behind this sentence is a little faulty:

    "What the war has done, though, has disrupted the organizations and organizational ability of state sponsored and large organizations and rendered them unable to effectively pull off another 9/11 type of attack."

    Al-Qaeda no long exists as it did, sure. But there are many MORE terrorists, many more attacks, many more people injured and killed, despite the fact that individual attacks may not currently be of such a large scale. The Taliban has also morphed and is pretty much stronger than ever - they have become a super-Taliban.

    I think the attitudes of the original letter completely miss the point - saying you don't care about Muslim people, the Geneva Conventions, international law, etc.? And then wondering why America is hated? It is not "freedom", it is policy, presence, economy and military. And right now the US is doing everything to perpetuate hatred towards it.

    (By the way, I have lived in the US for 15 years. I also lived in London during the Tube bombings. To say that people outside the US do not understand is a bit silly, especially considering that much of the world - including Europe - has dealt with terrorism far more often and more extensively than the US)
    • Gold Top Dog

    ORIGINAL: espencer

    Just a question, were all those terrorists living in Iraq after 9/11?


    irag, iran, syria, and afghanistan are known countries that harbor terrorists. why did we just invade iraq and afghanistan and not include iran and syria is beyond me. we all the terrorists in iraq? probably not. is there a good chance that some of them trained and/or lived there at some point? yep.

    early on bush said, and later recanted, something to the effect of you are either with us or against us. i say he was right on with that statement, and it pains me to say that cause i personally cant stand him and didnt vote for him. bush's biggest mistake is not encouraging congress to declare war. if i were a service man or woman, it would be a huge slap in my face to know that i was sent to fight for our country and the people my state elected to represent us were not behind me enough to declare war. of course what else would you expect from a bunch of sniveling, back-biting lawyers.

    i agree with much of what was said in that article. people from other countries can think what they want of americans, but if people were in the streets saying that all canadians or germans or french or ... were scum and burning their flags and epitaphs of their leaders cheering when a soldier was brutally killed, opinions may be different.

    i think it is absurd that we even honor the geneva conventions when dealing with prisoners of the current wars or people on the ground in those countries. currently, we arent fighting sovereign nations. we are fighting terrorist organizations. does anyone seriously think that these terrorist would follow a decades old treaty if they captured one of our soldiers? i can dare say that the iraqis or people of afghanistan should be happy i am not there. i think i would have a nervous trigger finger since you dont know which ones are the enemy and which arent.

    i do think the issues in north korea do deserve more military action than they are getting. problem is the american public. not enough people will stand behind our military and let them get on with their jobs. the public and congress are so wishy-washy that we are half-assing our mission in iraq. why would we want to start a war in yet another country at this point? to half-ass an overthrow in north korea?
    • Gold Top Dog
    ORIGINAL: inne

    You think the NIE is a "leftist entity"? The report has been declassified and I provided a link to it. You can read it yourself. This is a description of what the National Intelligence Estimate is:

    [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Estimate]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Estimate[/link]

    I completely disagree with your assessment of the source of this conflict. I would highly recommend reading Robert Fisk and Tariq Ali's work for a different perspective.


    I didn't say the NIE was leftist...I said the times and the common cause ones were.

    The source of the conflict???  Bin Laden's war on america?  A guy that we helped fight the Russians and provided arms to?  The source of the conflict is that we stopped supplying him with arms when the russians left, as well as other supplies.  We stopped providing support for him and his fight. 

    I respect your references, I probably won't check them out.  A jihad is a mindless thing, once it gets rolling it won't be stopped until it is destroyed.  In a larger world it would fizzle itself out, but in this tiny globe it will self perpetuate with or without a military presence.  When someone believes in a cause, no matter how futile, they will fight to the and to the of that ideal. 

    To quote George S. Patton when he was told "Sir today is a good day to die for my country." 

    His response:  "Bull$%^t, today is a good day for that sorry SOB to die for his country."

    I agree with Patton but substitute the word "ideal" for "country."
    • Gold Top Dog
    ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000


    i agree with much of what was said in that article. people from other countries can think what they want of americans, but if people were in the streets saying that all canadians or germans or french or ... were scum and burning their flags and epitaphs of their leaders cheering when a soldier was brutally killed, opinions may be different.


    Canadian soldiers are being killed because they are part of the NATO force.



    i think it is absurd that we even honor the geneva conventions when dealing with prisoners of the current wars or people on the ground in those countries. currently, we arent fighting sovereign nations. we are fighting terrorist organizations. does anyone seriously think that these terrorist would follow a decades old treaty if they captured one of our soldiers? i can dare say that the iraqis or people of afghanistan should be happy i am not there. i think i would have a nervous trigger finger since you dont know which ones are the enemy and which arent.


    You may be fighting terrorist organizations, but you are killing hundreds of thousands of civilians just like you. Why advocate that the US military violate international law and human rights? How can you claim to be superior to terrorists in any way if you do not care to distinguish between combatants and civilians? If you do not care to honour international law? If you advocate torture or the tolerance of it?
    • Gold Top Dog
    i think it is absurd that we even honor the geneva conventions when dealing with prisoners of the current wars or people on the ground in those countries. currently, we arent fighting sovereign nations. we are fighting ist organizations. does anyone seriously think that these ist would follow a decades old treaty if they captured one of our soldiers? i can dare say that the iraqis or people of afghanistan should be happy i am not there. i think i would have a nervous trigger finger since you dont know which ones are the enemy and which arent.


    I disagree with you there Bradley. 

    When this conflict started there was much hubub about "torture" and whether it should be used to extract information.  I was, am and always will be against it.  I could get you to admit, under , that you shot abraham lincoln while wearing a minnie mouse costume riding a bicycle backwards in the rain even though the sun was shining and the moon was out.  

    Or do you mean the ROE as outlined in the Geneva convention?  If that's what you mean...ummmm there are some very blurry interpretations of certain ROE- battlefield interpretations that could go either way.  The unit commander makes those judgement calls on site.  Remember that the victors write history.[;)]
    • Gold Top Dog
    ORIGINAL: Xerxes

    I didn't say the NIE was leftist...I said the times and the common cause ones were.


    Your implication was that their reporting was biased and therefore the article is unreliable. However, you can read the report yourself, which says exactly what the Times says it says.


    I respect your references, I probably won't check them out. A jihad is a mindless thing, once it gets rolling it won't be stopped until it is destroyed. In a larger world it would fizzle itself out, but in this tiny globe it will self perpetuate with or without a military presence. When someone believes in a cause, no matter how futile, they will fight to the and to the of that ideal.


    This is not supported by any experts in the field of terrorism (Robert Pape, for example) and I think it is a dangerous way of thinking because it completely divorces what is happening from history, culture and context. It makes it an ahistorical evil and it also makes it impossible to stop. It also makes it impossible for the US and other countries to make responsible, informed and effective policy and military decisions.

    If you want to see the source of terrorism, I think it will be quite clear when this generation of Iraqi children grows up, those lucky enough to survive the occupation, many of them orphans, many maimed, many with dead siblings and friends due to the actions of the US. Surely this is a hugely complicated issue, but if what we want is peace I think the US needs to drastically change and recognize its role in the creation of terror.
    • Gold Top Dog
      This is not supported by any experts in the field of ism (Robert Pape, for example) and I think it is a dangerous way of thinking because it completely divorces what is happening from history, culture and context. It makes it an ahistorical evil and it also makes it impossible to stop. It also makes it impossible for the US and other countries to make responsible, informed and effective policy and military decision


    Maybe it's not supported by the "experts."  But until you've walked a mile in the shoes of a Soldier, Marine, Airman or a Sailor in harms way because of these jihadists you'll be singing a totally different tune. 

    You're saying that it's not an historical evil???  So I'm Osama bin Laden, I can vaporize thousands of people and that's not evil?  I'm Saddam Hussein and I can gas thousands of Kurds and that's not evil?  I'm an imam preaching to my grade school class that America is the devil and that all good muslims should take arms against them- and that's not evil???

    What's your definition of evil then? 

    And you're absolutely right...it's almost impossible to make informed and effective policy against these jihadists.  They cannot be reasoned with as they will listen to no reason.  Jihadists want their "reward" as they martyr themselves.

    Ever heard of Kamikazee pilots during World War II?  They'd get work themselves into a frenzy before they boarded their planes.  When the US invaded Okinawa the Japanese civilians would throw themselves over cliffs to avoid capture- because they were TAUGHT that the americans would eat their children and do other horrible things to them. 

    This is one of the aspects of the psychology of war.  Look at historical war bond posters.  The only problem with this particular fight is that there's no way to contain all those who preach these atrocities and inhumanities as gospel.  These teachings are being taught in Montreal, in Edmonton, in Vancouver, in New York, in Europe, in Indonesia, in Pakistan, and that's less than a percent of where these teachings are occurring.    How do you orchestrate effective policy against a multi-national and intra national threat? 

    ETA:
    Hey inne,  we both joined the same day!  LOL

    • Gold Top Dog
    Canadian soldiers are being killed because they are part of the NATO force.


    but i dont see images of crowds of people cheering when a canadian soldier is killed. or hoards of people burning the canadian flag or saying that they hate canada's prime minister.

    despite what has happened in recent history, there seems to have always been a hatred of americans by many people in the middle east. why?

    honestly, i dont see why we didnt get a little backbone and support israel when they defended themselves against the terrorist threat right on there border in lebanon.


    You may be fighting terrorist organizations, but you are killing hundreds of thousands of civilians just like you.


    assuming that the civilians are actually innocent, they are an unfortunate casualty of war.

    How can you claim to be superior to terrorists in any way if you do not care to distinguish between combatants and civilians?


    i think the innocent civilians should make it painfully clear that they are not a threat to the US and NATO forces. otherwise, i would assume that everyone i came into contact with was the enemy. as a soldier how could you think anyother way? that is just self preservation.

    of the innocent civilians killed in iraq, what are the numbers of people killed by US bullets vs. the number killed by insurgent bullets and IED's? seems they are killing themselves as much as being killed by US troops to me. of course, i watch biased american news.

    so far as i can see, we may have violated some of the prisoner's civil rights (according to US law). i dont recall hundreds or thousands of people be tortured to the point of death or out right killed by any US forces. however, the same cannot be said of their own ex-leader. i also, dont recall any US prisoner being beheaded on video with a sword.

    sorry you bible was mistreated but at least we didnt cut your head off.
    • Gold Top Dog
    i am by no means a history buff. however, i remember learning about an evil man who decimated a portion of his country's population. he killed thousands of men, women and children to further his own interests. actually, he had to be beaten twice to get rid of him. who was it, adof hitler.

    in the US the generation of people who fought in WWI and WWII are known as the greatest generation. did we defeat hitler alone? nope, had the help of many other countries. the people who fought in those two wars are seen as heroes, and rightly so.

    were innocent civilans killed during those two wars? i am sure thousands were.

    is genocide of the jewish population different than the genocide of the soonies (sp?) (or whichever one sadaam was killing) population in iraq? maybe they werent killed in concentration camps, but they were killed nonetheless.

    maybe if sadaam had gained enough power to invade and conquer france and wage a brutal bombing attack on england, the world would see the war against iraq in a different light? maybe we just nipped the next would-be hitler in the bud?

    maybe i am totally wrong and we should just leave iraq and let the chips fall where they may? maybe we should just bring all our soldiers home and sit back and just defend our borders? the rest of the world seems to think that is what we should do. honestly, i cant think of anyone i know that really cares whether the soonies eradicate the shiites or vice-versa.

    if we do withdraw, i dont want to hear $hit from george clooney or any other celebrity about save darfor or any crap like that? they bitched like hell when we were in somalia. what's the difference? both are facing genocide of a people and ruling war lords. and i sure as $hit dont want to hear no frenchman whining next time they are invaded by an evil dictator.
    • Gold Top Dog
    I'd like to 'reverse' a few things you've said to give a different perspective...



    Maybe it's not supported by the "experts." But until you've walked a mile in the shoes of a Soldier, Marine, Airman or a Sailor in harms way because of these jihadists you'll be singing a totally different tune.



    You'd be 'singing a totally different tune' about America is if you'd walk a mile in the shoes (or crutches, depending or disability due to injury) of a person affected by American military aggression (Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Libya, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, or Iranians living under the US/UK supported Shah, Iranians [500,000] killed by war with US supported Iraq, Iraqis affected by years of punishing sanctions and bombings, or anyone currently living in places like Uzbekistan under the current US supported dictator http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1484631,00.html] ... and others.



    You're saying that it's not an historical evil??? So I'm Osama bin Laden, I can vaporize thousands of people and that's not evil? I'm Saddam Hussein and I can gas thousands of Kurds and that's not evil? I'm an imam preaching to my grade school class that America is the devil and that all good muslims should take arms against them- and that's not evil???

    What's your definition of evil then?


    I think you misunderstood what I was saying. "Ahistorical evil" means evil that comes out of nowhere - rootless, context-free evil with no cause. It has no history.

    If you want to be relative about vaporizing people, while Osama can and has vaporized thousands, America is the country with the largest (by far) nuclear arsenal of which thousands of warheads are ready to be launched within minutes of an order with the effect of vaporizing many many millions of people. think about that... if George Bush decided to, many millions of people would be dead within hours. America is also the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons against a civilian population.

    At the time Saddam gassed the Kurds the US had nothing against it, and provided the chemical components in the first place for the war against Iran. Not a single politician in the US has ever had the courage to say anything about a decade of support for Saddam and apologize to the Iraqi people, or at least acknowledge it and admit the mistake.

    Regarding the Imam... do you think that comments made by leading Israeli politicians about the 'destruction' (mass murder) of Palestinians and Iranians warrants US military intervention?

    If Israel is able to advocate pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran because of a perceived threat, why is it not justified for Iran to think the same when faced with Israel's existing nuclear arsenal?

    And isn't the US government currently on a huge campaign to recruit people to carry out and support their military missions by portraying Iraqis, Arabs, Muslims, etc. as threats that warrant the suppression of international law, human rights, civil rights and due process? Isn't the US dehumanizing Iraqis, not even acknowledging the extensive and methodologically impressive studies of civilian deaths? Isn't the US dehumanizing Iraqis by calling them "jihadists" and "terrorists" when in fact they are resistance forces? Terrorist organizations certainly have no monopoly on propaganda.



    And you're absolutely right...it's almost impossible to make informed and effective policy against these jihadists. They cannot be reasoned with as they will listen to no reason. Jihadists want their "reward" as they martyr themselves.


    I did not say it is impossible. I absolutely think it is possible to make informed and effective policy, but I think the way in which terrorism has been framed by the US prevents that from happening because the US wishes to absolve itself of its own responsibility for terrorism. It does not want to change its foreign policy, withdraw military bases, withdraw support for Israel, stop its invasions and occupations of Middle Eastern countries, alter its place in global capitalism. Have you read Bin Laden's statements, for example? They are quite clear and unambiguous in its grievances and they have nothing to do with "freedom". When terrorism and intelligence experts do their research, they're not just theorizing in their university offices - they are interviewing terrorists and collecting data and this data clearly shows that terrorism is caused by ideological, material and political (surprisingly, seldom religious) grievances. In fact, many "Muslim" terrorists do not identify as religious at all (see research on Hizballah, for example - out of 28 suicide bombers studied, only a small number were fundamentalist Muslims. 3 were actually Christian). This is why terrorism experts are important; soldiers using daisy cutters on perceived terrorists don't really know why terrorists are doing what they're doing; their investment in how terrorism works and why terrorists do what they do is completely removed from history. They are not there to understand the causes of resistance which is a long, complex history that most Americans, including most in the military, don't know the first thing about. They are there to suppress it and a certainly mentality is certainly needed to do that, one that is not compatible with the kind of perspective someone like Pape has of the issue.

    It's also absurd to lump in everyone opposing the American military as "jihadists" when a large majority of the insurgency in Iraq is made up of Iraqis fighting what they see as a hostile force which occupies their country.



    Ever heard of Kamikazee pilots during World War II? They'd get work themselves into a frenzy before they boarded their planes. When the US invaded Okinawa the Japanese civilians would throw themselves over cliffs to avoid capture- because they were TAUGHT that the americans would eat their children and do other horrible things to them.

    This is one of the aspects of the psychology of war. Look at historical war bond posters. The only problem with this particular fight is that there's no way to contain all those who preach these atrocities and inhumanities as gospel. These teachings are being taught in Montreal, in Edmonton, in Vancouver, in New York, in Europe, in Indonesia, in Pakistan, and that's less than a percent of where these teachings are occurring. How do you orchestrate effective policy against a multi-national and intra national threat?


    American soldiers in Vietnam were also worked in to a 'frenzy' when dealing with people who were completely dehumanized to them. Troops working themselves into a frenzy and dehumanizing the enemy is a routine part of war, including for Americans. There are countless videos of American troops doing exactly this in the US, videos captured by the troops themselves, by journalists and filmmakers. There is an ever-increasing number of troops testifying to their own participation in human rights violations and objecting to the tactics used in Iraq, testimony they give at their volition in public spaces to voice their disagreement with the occupation.

    The preaching of radical religious views is not the threat. The threat emanates from people affected by American military action, almost always taken for economic interest (i.e. Supporting Saddam was in the economic interests of the US in the context of the Middle East in the 1980s). The solution is to stop creating generations of people who have strong reasons to resent the US, such as their countries destroyed, their democratically elected governments overthrown (Latin America, Shah in Iran, etc). The reason people who preach against America have power is because they vocalize the grievances that *already exist* on a mass scale. And these grievances aren't unique to ME countries, these are criticisms of the US and the West that also comes out of Western journalists, Western academics, human rights organizations, the UN. No one has to make up stories about American killing children because America really is killing children. America really is significantly interfering in the lives of people in devastating and everyday ways. The problem isn't that people are preaching, the problem is that much of what they're saying is actually based in truth and that's an atrocity America needs to change.

    How do people in Middle Eastern countries orchestrate effectively against destruction by the US?
    • Gold Top Dog
    ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000


    were civilans killed during those two wars? i am sure thousands were.




    Hundreds of thousands.  More people were killed by Gen.  Curtis LeMay's firebombing campaigns than by the two atomic .  (re firebombings of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo and Nagoya to start off)

    While we're talking of Genocide, there's also Stalin, Pol-Pot and Idi Amin to consider.
    Also let's not forget about Saddam's treatment of the Kurds.  Got a strong stomach?  Warning...graphic images in these links.  (Oh yeah inne-there's a commondreams URL in there too...lol)

    [linkhttp://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html]http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html[/link]

    [linkhttp://www.commondreams.org/views02/0830-07.htm]http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0830-07.htm[/link]

    [linkhttp://www.commondreams.org/views02/1214-01.htm]http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1214-01.htm[/link]

    [linkhttp://home.cogeco.ca/%7Ekurdistan3/4-7-04-poison-victims-demand-death-saddam.htm]http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistan3/4-7-04-poison-victims-demand-death-saddam.htm[/link]

    [linkhttp://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html]http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html[/link] (an entire page dedicated to those who were slaughtered at Halabja)

    [linkhttp://www.genocidewatch.org/A%20Kurdish%20view%20for%20peace.htm]http://www.genocidewatch.org/A%20Kurdish%20view%20for%20peace.htm[/link]

    [linkhttp://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/warning.htm]http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/warning.htm[/link]

    So Saddam wasn't just Sunnis he was a bit more broad spectrumed. Here's a small blurb from one of the above links...

    Al-Anfal Halabja was neither an aberration nor a desperate act of a regime caught in a grinding, stalemated war. Instead, it was one event in a deliberate, large-scale campaign called Al-Anfal to kill and displace the predominately Kurdish inhabitants of northern Iraq. In an exhaustive study published in 1994, Human Rights Watch concluded that the 1988 Anfal campaign amounted to an extermination campaign against the Kurds of Iraq, resulting in the s of at least 50,000 and perhaps as many as 100,000 persons, many of them women and children. Baghdad launched about 40 gas attacks against Iraqi Kurdish targets in 1987-88, with thousands killed. But many also perished through the regime's traditional methods: nighttime raids by troops who abducted men and boys who were later executed and dumped in mass graves. Other family members — women, children, the elderly — were arrested for arbitrary periods under conditions of extreme hardship, or forcibly removed from their homes and sent to barren resettlement camps. As Human Rights Watch details, Iraqi forces demolished entire villages — houses, schools, shops, mosques, farms, power stations — everything to ensure the destruction of entire communities.


    • Gold Top Dog
    ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

    Canadian soldiers are being killed because they are part of the NATO force.


    but i dont see images of crowds of people cheering when a canadian soldier is killed. or hoards of people burning the canadian flag or saying that they hate canada's prime minister.


    I suggest you take a much closer look at the news then, because it has certainly happened. Except the flag burning part - I haven't seen that. At the same time, you might want to look at exactly why Canada isn't hated in the way the US is; start by looking at foreign policy and military action.



    despite what has happened in recent history, there seems to have always been a hatred of americans by many people in the middle east. why?


    Again, I really recommend Robert Fisk's books, particularly The Great War for Civilization, the writings of Tariq Ali, Amira Hass, Gideon Levy, etc. There's a fantastic Israeli newspaper called Ha'aretz (http://www.haaretz.com ) that regularly publishes fantastic columns and articles that would probably help you understand this issue a great deal.

    And that's all I'm going to respond to in your post.
    • Gold Top Dog
    Xerxes, look at all those biased Common Dreams sources :)
    • Gold Top Dog
    I suggest you take a much closer look at the news then, because it has certainly happened. Except the flag burning part - I haven't seen that. At the same time, you might want to look at exactly why Canada isn't hated in the way the US is



    Socialist medicine? 
    Non-Imperialist Country?
    Too cold for women to wear s all year round?
    Bi-lingualism depending upon the province?
    Easier immigration policies?
    Not enough firearms?
    No Twin Towers?
    They are Maple Leafs fans and they think Sundin doesn't get the respect he deserves? [;)]