Thread: Has Anyone Read CIA Guy Michael Scheuer?

Originally Posted by Bruno

Unfortunately, this is no solution to terrorism.
a) you might not know who did it, or have no proof, so who do you bomb? And even if you have proof... Saddam had WMD, right? and he had ties with AlQaeada, right? Only afterwards he suddenly didn't and the proof was nonexisting.
b) even if you know who did it, if it is e.g. 'The judean people front' , then which country do you attack?
c) some of the 911 hijackers were saudis, which are still Bush's best pals in the middle east, regardless of what they do. The US needs the saudis more than anything else. The dollar is propped up by the Saudis asking for US dollars. If they would switch to selling in Euros, the US economy would plunge, so the US government will not want this to happen, regardless of who flies a plane into a building.

You can only hold a country responsible if its government initiated the actions.
You cannot hold a country responsible for what their non-governmental citizens do. And that is what makes the political situation very complicated these days.
At least in the past you knew who the enemy was.

Bruno -
I would be the last person to say that we should indiscriminately bomb "whoever". I also know that the Iraqis were not responsible for 911. Obviously, Iraq has had WMD in the past and Saddam purposely mislead his citizens, neighbors and the UN (read: the USA) that he was still very militarily powerful. These are sidepoints to the fact that the Taleban in Afghanistan supported, protected and encouraged the actions of Al Queda. Their country was the obvious target for 911 retribution. The fact that we waited a couple of weeks to strike, simply allowed the fighters to head over borders and mountains and into villages to fight another day.

I don't really understand the comment about the "judean people front" as it seems unlikely that the Israelis are going to attack us anytime soon.

The Saudis are a huge concern but maybe not for the reason that you listed. I know that they are brutally repressive to their own people and that Bush can't resist whining for them to pump more oil to keep the prices low - of course we don't have the capacity to refine the damn crude - not to mention the lowly value of the dollar biting us all in the backside as we try to buy crude in a global marketplace - but Saudi Arabia would not have been a military target for 911 either. No one can deny that their huge majority in the makeup of the 911 attackers is indicative of at least a portion of the attitudes of the Saudi populace.

What is concerning is the refusal of US leaders to acknowledge what the attackers were angry about. I don't care if we acknowledge their reason and follow that with a big F&*! YOU - we're going to continue our policies as we see fit. But to deny the reasons and laugh at those who point them out as kooks speaks to either the ignorance of our leadership or their belief that Americans are fools. Either of those options is scary.

As far as holding a "government" responsible versus holding groups/areas responsible for actions taken against the USA, I think you have a point that we live in a time in which it is important to distinguish accountability and that swift and crushing response must be carried out against only those accountable - where possible. A foreign Example: The Hizbolla in Lebanon attacking Israel. Israel has every right to utterly destroy the areas involved in harboring fighters and waging war against Isreal. (I just think we had better stay the heck out of the dispute!)

Originally Posted by gugi

Nope, not hard to follow at all. It boils down to two main arguments:
(1)
(2)religion

Both are extremely simplistic and he's cherry picking facts to support a thesis. The same things can be said about any other empire and religion complete with examples. Makes for an 'interesting' narrative, but as analysis has zero value.

That was my thought, too. It sort of listed the historical misunderstandings but did not really offer analysis.

Originally Posted by gugi

I do not agree with this view. I understand that it's popular, but as an example my country along with few others was islamic rule for 500 years. Now that's a really long time and there was no concern whatsoever about what we today call atrocities, war crimes or genocide. All these things were committed every now and then, but various religions were allowed to exist, even though they were always supressed when threatening the state. This was not any different to how Christianity states dealt with non traditional religions.
Gugi,
What exactly do you disagree with? Isn't it true that the religion views this jihad (struggle) as a defensive war against infidels? I know that muslim countries have been tolerant in the past, but this is not in accordance with their religious instruction - the instruction being that the infidels are to be invited to convert or to pay tax to the religious government.

The role of troops in Saudi Arabia has very little to do with religion - it's to ensure the stability of the oil business. If the arabian peninsula was inhabited by hindus under totalitarian dictatorship US would still have troops.
Fundamentalists do not see this as inoccuous. I don't think anyone thinks that it has anything to do with religion EXCEPT that fundamentalist muslims feel that troops on the arabian peninsula are evident of American empire and they believe they are required to resist this "invasion".

These are not excuses for religious zealotry! I just want people to begin learning about their enemy. They have learned about us and seem to know our weaknesses.

Originally Posted by DEwey

Bruno -
I would be the last person to say that we should indiscriminately bomb "whoever". I also know that the Iraqis were not responsible for 911. Obviously, Iraq has had WMD in the past and Saddam purposely mislead his citizens, neighbors and the UN (read: the USA) that he was still very militarily powerful. These are sidepoints to the fact that the Taleban in Afghanistan supported, protected and encouraged the actions of Al Queda. Their country was the obvious target for 911 retribution. The fact that we waited a couple of weeks to strike, simply allowed the fighters to head over borders and mountains and into villages to fight another day.

I know that an immediate strike would have prevented this, but it could have been possible that the Taliban would have agreed. Diplomacy first, force second. Otherwise the world would explode when Russia, China and the US start attacking every time there is a political power play

I don't really understand the comment about the "judean people front" as it seems unlikely that the Israelis are going to attack us anytime soon.

Sorry this was a pun to 'life of Brian'. Bascially I meant that terrorist organizations can exist independent of an official government. So even if you know for sure who attacked you, there might not be a country to attack.
Suppose you find out that al qaeda is hiding somewhere in pakistan without official sanction from the Pakistani government. Does that give you the right to bomb Iran?

The Saudis are a huge concern but maybe not for the reason that you listed. I know that they are brutally repressive to their own people and that Bush can't resist whining for them to pump more oil to keep the prices low - of course we don't have the capacity to refine the damn crude - not to mention the lowly value of the dollar biting us all in the backside as we try to buy crude in a global marketplace - but Saudi Arabia would not have been a military target for 911 either. No one can deny that their huge majority in the makeup of the 911 attackers is indicative of at least a portion of the attitudes of the Saudi populace.

What is concerning is the refusal of US leaders to acknowledge what the attackers were angry about. I don't care if we acknowledge their reason and follow that with a big F&*! YOU - we're going to continue our policies as we see fit. But to deny the reasons and laugh at those who point them out as kooks speaks to either the ignorance of our leadership or their belief that Americans are fools. Either of those options is scary.

As far as holding a "government" responsible versus holding groups/areas responsible for actions taken against the USA, I think you have a point that we live in a time in which it is important to distinguish accountability and that swift and crushing response must be carried out against only those accountable - where possible. A foreign Example: The Hizbolla in Lebanon attacking Israel. Israel has every right to utterly destroy the areas involved in harboring fighters and waging war against Isreal. (I just think we had better stay the heck out of the dispute!)

some useless text here because otherwise I don't have enough 'message' to post.

Hi Bruno,
Here we agreed again, in that sometimes we certainly do not have a country's government to "bomb".

Of course, you know, the US did try to get the Taleban to give us Osama Bin Laden and they refused.

WHAT THE...Did you say that if an Al Queda cell was identified in Pakistan that someone may think that was the green light to bomb Iran???? I think that may have been a typo or a joke.

Lastly, this was hardly a powerplay, it was an act of war that killed over 3,000 people. I would fully expect a Russian attack if a rogue group in the US killed 3k Russians!

Originally Posted by DEwey

Hi Bruno,
Here we agreed again, in that sometimes we certainly do not have a country's government to "bomb".

Of course, you know, the US did try to get the Taleban to give us Osama Bin Laden and they refused.

WHAT THE...Did you say that if an Al Queda cell was identified in Pakistan that someone may think that was the green light to bomb Iran???? I think that may have been a typo or a joke.

Whoopsie. Typo indeed. Good thing you didn't push the button.

Lastly, this was hardly a powerplay, it was an act of war that killed over 3,000 people. I would fully expect a Russian attack if a rogue group in the US killed 3k Russians!

Ah. But war presumes 2 countries or nations going at each other.
A small group of people funded by a billionaire which flies an airplane into a building can be called lots of things, but not war. There was no government backing from any country.

The error that was made by the Taleban was not the sheltering of Bin laden, nor the the grandstanding. I am convinced that if they had secretly negotiated with the US, they could have extradited him / let him be captured without loss of face.

Their error was in giving the US the finger in public and actually mean it.
But even so, they were not responsible for the attack. This situation was very different from one country attacking the other.

How would Scheuer handle the thoughts and writings of an ex-Islamic terrorist such as : http:///www.victorhanson.com/articles/ibrahim032608.html

I know one person doesn't make anything certain, but having an insider speak does make things a little interesting.


Justin

Remember the good ol' days when war meant carpet bombing an entire population back to the stone age. Ahh to be young again when we really knew how to throw a war.

Makes sense to me.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Remember the good ol' days when war meant carpet bombing an entire population back to the stone age. Ahh to be young again when we really knew how to throw a war.

Makes sense to me.

At least you knew how to win them then (Ok there should be a 'tease' emoticon. The best I could do here was the wink)

Ah to be young again knowing then what I know now...
My college years would certainly be a lot more interesting vis-a-vis interaction with the female half of the population.