News Revisiting the War on Terror: A Call to Action

[tuco]

Amnesty International Annual Lecture
Hosted by Trinty College
by professor Noam Chomsky

"War on Terror"

Venue: Shelborne Hall, RDS, Dublin
Date: 18th Jan 2006

http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20060118.pdf
--

im pretty sure this was debated before, nevertheless maybe someone will find the lecture interesting as its quite recent.

let me quote Chomsky's last sentence from the lecture:

The constructive ways have to begin with an honest look in the mirror, never an easy task, always a necessary one. - Noam Chomsky

btw what can each of us do to help in these matters? ideas? coz obviously sitting in front of our computers babbling about it won't solve anything. then again, why should we try to help anything?

 

[Art]

Interesting article tuco. Well worth a read for those with a genuine interest in understanding the motivations behind much of the world's current unrest. Although unashamedly biased concentrating almost exclusively on western transgressions I imagine the author can justify this on the basis that the pro-western view is already enunciated daily through almost every western media outlet.

One of his central contentions that if the west is really interested in reducing world terror they should stop supporting and funding it is IMO a very valid point.

btw on a lighter note I like Robert Ludlum's definition of the acronym CIA - Caught In the Act.

 

[loseyourname]

Is there any way we could talk about what was posted here instead of another locked thread? If you want to know why it was locked, the explanation given in the final post isn't enough for you, PM the person that locked it. Don't ruin a separate and perfectly good thread.

 

[Burnsys]

Is there any way we could talk about what was posted here instead of another locked thread? If you want to know why it was locked, the explanation given in the final post isn't enough for you, PM the person that locked it. Don't ruin a separate and perfectly good thread.

Actualy this "perfectly good thread." was started becouse The other thread was locked, becouse both threads talk about the same thing, Cia Terrorist activities. (tuco sayd it himself but someone deleted that part from his post).

But ok LYM, let's talk about what is posted in this "perfectly good thread.".
--------------------------------------------------------

when chomsky says:
"The constructive ways have to begin with an honest look in the mirror, never an easy task, always a necessary one. - Noam Chomsky"

he is referring to The Cia support of terrorist and to terrorist activities executed by the cia, some examples that chomsky cites in the http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20060118.pdf" (and i previusly posted in the locked thread) are:

Luis Posada Carriles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

Batista's Cuba
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/...irkpatrick.htm

edit:you're recreating the locked thread. Let's keep this thread about this lecture. I have deleted information that is not discussed in the link in the OP. Let's keep this on topic.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well Chomsky here is not talking so much about the CIA adventures, which go back to the overthrow of Mossadegh, an operation with the unintended consequence that ordinary "western" middle class Iranians came to detest the US. I roomed with one such (where are you now, Mohammed Sharifzadeh?) in 1960. He was getting a postgrad education at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, as was I, and he loathed, absolutely loathed America. "Ingrate," you may say, but if we had used a little prudence he would have been on our side. As it was, his kind of people rallied to the Islamic Republic and the overthrow of the Shah.

This is really Chomsky's point. Not just wallowing in US guilt, but perceiving that it is never productive. Always the people you mistreat with high sounding rhetoric will come to despise you, and since we've been busy visiting our blessings on so many other countries over the past 60 years, by now the whole world is our enemy, sometimes overtly and often in private.

 

[Burnsys]

FROM Chomsky:http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20060118.pdf

To take one of these official definitions, terrorism is “the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear,” typically targeting civilians. The British government’s definition is about the same: “Terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause.”

But a problem at once arises. These definitions yield an entirely unacceptable consequence: it follows that the US is a leading terrorist state, dramatically so during the Reaganite war on terror. Merely to take the most uncontroversial case, Reagan’s state-directed terrorist war against Nicaragua was condemned by the World Court, backed by two Security Council resolutions (vetoed by the US, with Britain politely abstaining). Another completely clear case is Cuba, where the record by now is voluminous, and not controversial. And there is a long list beyond them.

Sorry i keep going with this. but this topic is about EXACTLY the same of my locked thread. Sorry but i am a little bit angry.

Is the CIA a Terrorist Organization?
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=115264

 

[russ_watters]

Amnesty International Annual Lecture
Hosted by Trinty College
by professor Noam Chomsky

"War on Terror"

Venue: Shelborne Hall, RDS, Dublin
Date: 18th Jan 2006

http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20060118.pdf

My first impression, and one that is typical of why I don't much like Chomsky, is that he's using the title of the speech to trick people into reading it. It doesn't much look like he wants to talk about Bush's war on terror at all, but to use the name as a segue into a discussion of events that happened under Reagan.

Bush's foreign policy is most certainly not a continuation of Reagan's. As a result of this segue, Chomsky puts the reader (listener) on a suspicious posture right from the start and makes one not want to read further. An honest and thoughtful discussion cannot be started via a deception.

I'll try to read more later, though...

 

[Burnsys]

My first impression, and one that is typical of why I don't much like Chomsky, is that he's using the title of the speech to trick people into reading it. It doesn't much look like he wants to talk about Bush's war on terror at all, but to use the name as a segue into a discussion of events that happened under Reagan.

Bush's foreign policy is most certainly not a continuation of Reagan's. As a result of this segue, Chomsky puts the reader (listener) on a suspicious posture right from the start and makes one not want to read further. An honest and thoughtful discussion cannot be started via a deception.

I'll try to read more later, though...

You didn't read the text, what chomsky says is that key the key players in Reagan's war on terror are now the key players in Bush's War on terror.
For example: John Negroponte and Rumsfeld

A second fact is that the war was declared and implemented by pretty much the same people who are conducting the re-declared war on terrorism.The civilian component of the re-declared War on Terror is led by John Negroponte, appointed last year to supervise all counterterror operations. As Ambassador in Honduras, he was the hands-on director of the major operation of the first War on Terror, the contra war against Nicaragua launched mainly from US bases in Honduras.

During the first phase of the War on Terror, Rumsfeld was Reagan’s special representative to the Middle East. There, his main task was to establish close relations with Saddam Hussein so that the US could provide him with large-scale aid, including means to develop WMD, continuing long after the huge atrocities against the Kurds and the end of the war with Iran.

Edit: Second half of chomsky text is about bush's war on terror . which you haven't read yet

 

[Art]

You didn't read the text, what chomsky says is that key the key players in Reagan's war on terror are now the key players in Bush's War on terror.
For example: John Negroponte and Rumsfeld





Edit: Second half of chomsky text is about bush's war on terror . which you haven't read yet

Burnsys I really wouldn't waste your time responding to posters who present a critique without actually bothering to read the article they are critiquing.

 

[Amp1]

Something that Chomsky points out that's glossed over by those that 'don't like it' is the double standard. Another is the mindset of the US policy makers, ie:

It is common to say that no WMD were found in Iraq after exhaustive search. That is not quite accurate, however. There were stores of WMD in Iraq: namely, those produced in the 1980s, thanks to aid provided by the US and Britain, along with others. These sites had been secured by UN inspectors, who were dismantling the weapons. But the inspectors were dismissed by the invaders and the sites were left unguarded. The inspectors nevertheless continued to carry out their work with satellite imagery. They discovered sophisticated massive looting of these installations in over 100 sites, including equipment for producing solid and liquid propellant missiles, biotoxins and other materials usable for chemical and biological weapons, and high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear and chemical weapons and missiles. A Jordanian journalist was informed by officials in charge of the Jordanian-Iraqi border that after US-UK forces took over, radioactive materials were detected in one of every eight trucks crossing to Jordan, destination unknown.
The ironies are almost inexpressible. The official justification for the US-UK invasion was to prevent the use of WMD that did not exist. The invasion provided the terrorists who had been mobilized by the US and its allies with the means to develop WMD -- namely, equipment they had provided to Saddam, caring nothing about the terrible crimes they later invoked to whip up support for the invasion. It is as if Iran were now making nuclear weapons using fissionable materials provided by the US to Iran under the Shah -- which may indeed be happening. Programs to recover and secure such materials were having considerable success in the ‘90s, but like the war on terror, these programs fell victim to Bush administration priorities as they dedicated their energy and resources to invading Iraq.

and, If Osama is really being sought after or being tracked down then why this:

Turning to another domain, the Treasury Department has a bureau (OFAC, Office of Foreign Assets Control) that is assigned the task of investigating suspicious financial transfers, a central component of the “war on terror.” In April 2004, OFAC informed Congress that of its 120 employees, four were assigned to tracking the finances of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, while almost two dozen were occupied with enforcing the embargo against Cuba. From 1990 to 2003 there were 93 terrorism-related investigations with $9000 in fines; and 11,000 Cuba-related investigations with $8 million in fines. The revelations received the silent treatment in the US media, elsewhere as well to my knowledge.
Why should the Treasury Department devote vastly more energy to strangling Cuba than to the “war on terror”? The basic reasons were explained in internal documents of the Kennedy-Johnson years. State Department planners warned that the “very existence” of the Castro regime is “successful defiance” of US policies going back 150 years, to the Monroe Doctrine; not Russians, but intolerable defiance of the master of the hemisphere, much like Iran’s crime of successful defiance in 1979, or Syria’s rejection of Clinton’s demands. Punishment of the population was regarded as fully legitimate, we learn from internal documents. “The Cuban people [are] responsible for the regime,” the Eisenhower State Department decided, so that the US has the right to cause them to suffer by economic strangulation, later escalated to direct terror by Kennedy.

 

[Astronuc]

A conversation with George Soros with his thoughts on the "War on Terror". Soros makes some very good points.

August 11, 2006

Over the years, George Soros has given away about $5 billion in support of causes ranging from democracy in Eastern Europe to after school programs in New York City. He also spent tens of millions trying to keep President Bush from winning a second term. Because that effort failed, Soros has written a new book: "The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror." He discussed the book on Aug. 3 at the Aspen Institute in Aspen, Colo.

http://www.publicradio.org/tools/media/player/wordforword/2006/08/11 real media required.

from http://wordforword.publicradio.org/

Archive programs
http://wordforword.publicradio.org/programs/ - Tony Blair, Clinton, Karl Rove, and others

 

[TuviaDaCat]

watch this...


edit: nevermind what was written here, i write stupid things when tierd...

 

[Evo]

watch this...


its quite obvious to me, but it seems that europe is too moral to believe so...

im pretty tierd, i might read the article tommorow.

but i think its a very important point for u people to discuss about europe nature to avoid the war on terror, which is very obvious.

It was a video of one woman's opinion, but BRAVO! I couldn't agree with her more.

I don't understand what it has to do with what you're talking about though.

 

[Yonoz]

It was a video of one woman's opinion, but BRAVO! I couldn't agree with her more.

It's always a joy to hear http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafa_Sultan" . Check out the "external links" section for more pearls of wisdom.

 

[Astronuc]

It was a video of one woman's opinion, but BRAVO! I couldn't agree with her more.

I've seen the video before, and I too agree with her.

I don't understand what it has to do with what you're talking about though.

Yeah, it's a non-sequitir in the present disucssion.

On the other hand, it does address some major issues behind the current unrest (hostilities) in the world.

Generally, some (perhaps many) people blame external sources for their problems/suffering, when the problems or suffering is self-inflicted.

 

[SOS2008]

'Islamic fascists' who hate freedom? Please!

In reference to rhetoric and double standards that is causing the Mideast to dispise the U.S.:

The day the enemy became 'Islamic fascists'
The president turns a new phrase to describe the 'war on terrorism'

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14304397/

The debate of whether fascism is a correct term to describe Islamic terrorists has been ongoing and ultimately is a matter of opinion. IMO there are too few similarities and the terms "radicals" or "extremists" are more appropriate.

So I was outraged when Bush used the term. Not only is it a cheap attempt to increase his rating on terrorism in these pre-election months, it is glaringly hypocritical. Bush and his Rapture-believing, science-suppressing, neo-con supporters need only to look in the mirror to see backward religious fanaticism and fascist nationalism. Talk about casting stones.

I am pleased to see the news media pick up on this nonsense, and would like to know if others in PF picked up on this as well and your reactions to it.

A second and related point made by Bush is that these Islamic fascists want to destroy us because they hate freedom. WTF?! How long must we tolerate having this chimp catapult his propaganda feces at us?

Hmm...who is a more credible source? Bush and his ignorance-embracing supporters or Chomsky? Chomsky, of course! Open your mind and read what he has to say.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Hmm...who is a more credible source? Bush and his ignorance-embracing supporters or Chomsky? Chomsky, of course! Open your mind and read what he has to say.

Chomsky is like quantum mechanics. Everything he says is correct, but the interpretations are viciously controversial.

 

[pcorbett]

I'm going to go with Bush and his "ignorance embracing" supporters over Islamofascist and left-wing know-nothings. Call it a vote for freedom.

 

[SOS2008]

I'm going to go with Bush and his "ignorance embracing" supporters over Islamofascist and left-wing know-nothings. Call it a vote for freedom.

Rather than just claiming that left-wingers know nothing, I'd prefer you enlighten us with your great knowledge regarding the term fascist and how, per definition, this is more applicable to Islamic terrorists than it is to the right-wing neocon Bushies.

 

[Skyhunter]

Rather than just claiming that left-wingers know nothing, I'd prefer you enlighten us with your great knowledge regarding the term fascist and how, per definition, this is more applicable to Islamic terrorists than it is to the right-wing neocon Bushies.

Here are the fourteen defining characteristics of fascism.

Islamic extremists share some similar characteristics with fascists, so have most violent movements in history. Overall there is little they have in common with fascism. Most glaringly is lack of nationalism, a key component of fascism.

Here is a point by point comparison.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/11/15545/8082

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

Wrong on the first point (kinda like how those who say US law is grounded in the Ten Commandments: the First Amendment and the First Commandment contradict each other). Here, fascism is nationalistic whereas violent Islamists are not only stateless, their pan-Islamic or neo-caliphate ambitions are actively hostile to dozens of nations. They can't be fascists because they want to erase the divisions between nations. The caliphate pre-dates any notion of the nation-state. They may have mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia, but nation is not the theme.

For Bush to use that language is a sign that he is reaching out to the dittoheads, hannitized, and savaged wing-nuts in an attempt to energize the rabid base for the mid-terms.

As Alexandra mentioned in another thread, and I paraprase;

One must correctly identify a problem if one is to have any chance at all of solving it.

Bush's use of the term Islamic fascist, is a sign to me that either he doesn't understand what he is saying, or that his choice of words are calculated to evoke a response.

I think it is both, he doesn't understand, but he says what he says because Rove has made the calculations and instucted him to say it.

 

[Astronuc]

Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan, where al Qaida was (is?) located and where Osama bin Laden was (is?) -

Becoming a Piece of the Picture: Life in Afghanistan
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5690902

All Things Considered, August 22, 2006 · Sarah Chayes is a familiar name to NPR listeners. She reported for NPR from Paris, the Balkans, and after the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan. She became so captivated by the potential of Afghanistan that she left reporting, and started a nonprofit group in the southern city of Kandahar.

She still lives in Afghanistan, now running a cooperative agricultural venture that sells local soaps and oils. Chayes has written a book about her years in Afghanistan. Her book tells a story of corrupt warlords, counterproductive U.S. policy, and murder.

Interesting commentary from Chayes. All isn't what the Bush administration would have the American public believe.

 

[russ_watters]

Here are the fourteen defining characteristics of fascism.

Islamic extremists share some similar characteristics with fascists, so have most violent movements in history. Overall there is little they have in common with fascism. Most glaringly is lack of nationalism, a key component of fascism.

Though I agree, at least, that the comparison is a little thin, it isn't without merit and the objection to point #1 is, simply put, shortsighted and self-contradictory. Ie:

Here, fascism is nationalistic whereas violent Islamists are not only stateless... [snip] They can't be fascists because they want to erase the divisions between nations.

Say what? That's as direct a self-contradiction as there can be. Paraphrased: 'Islamists are stateless because they want the world united in a single Islamic state.'

But nationalism exists even locally: Point #1 mentions flags and key symbolism in promoting the cause. Case-in-point: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/pictures/GOT08D.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gallery/image/0,8543,-10404885621,00.html

Essentially, Islamic fascism is trans-national (unfortunately, the word "transnationalism" is already taken, otherwise I'd coin it for this purpose...). It is fiercely nationalistic local organizations with a larger unifying purpose.

The caliphate pre-dates any notion of the nation-state.

Islam is only 1500 years old. What do you call those things tha existed before then, like the Egyptian and Roman empires? Surely they qualify as nation-states?

They may have mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia, but nation is not the theme.

That's a cop-out. Translation: 'all the components are the same, but they are different because we applied a different name to the phenomena'. Uh, no.

In any case:

The debate of whether fascism is a correct term to describe Islamic terrorists has been ongoing and ultimately is a matter of opinion. IMO there are too few similarities and the terms "radicals" or "extremists" are more appropriate.

I'll agree with that. They are certainly closely related, but the trans-national charcteristic makes the comparison a little problematic. Certainly, Bush picked the term for its emotional impact. He's not wrong, he's just being a politician.

 

[Skyhunter]

In any case: I'll agree with that. They are certainly closely related, but the trans-national charcteristic makes the comparison a little problematic. Certainly, Bush picked the term for its emotional impact. He's not wrong, he's just being a politician.

Until the Saudis objected.

http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/1684675/posts

In a statement after its weekly meeting, the Saudi Cabinet "warned against labeling Muslims with accusations of terrorism and fascism."

Bush didn't repeat the reference to "Islamic fascists" at the State Department today, referring instead to "individuals that would like to kill innocent Americans to achieve political objectives."

A clear indicator of where his priorities lie.

 

[Astronuc]

Ahmed Rashid, Reporting on Islamist Groups
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5702969

Fresh Air from WHYY, August 24, 2006 · Before most Americans had heard of the Taliban, Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid wrote a book about them. After the Sept. 11 attacks, it became a best-seller. Rashid's recent reporting for English-language newspapers involves Islamist militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (Paperback) ISBN: 0300089023 (Mar 1, 2001)

Amazon.com

This is the single best book available on the Taliban, the fundamentalist Islamic regime in Afghanistan responsible for harboring the terrorist Osama bin Laden. Ahmed Rashid is a Pakistani journalist who has spent most of his career reporting on the region--he has personally met and interviewed many of the Taliban's shadowy leaders. Taliban was written and published before the massacres of September 11, 2001, yet it is essential reading for anyone who hopes to understand the aftermath of that black day. It includes details on how and why the Taliban came to power, the government's oppression of ordinary citizens (especially women), the heroin trade, oil intrigue, and--in a vitally relevant chapter--bin Laden's sinister rise to power. These pages contain stories of mass slaughter, beheadings, and the Taliban's crushing war against freedom: under Mullah Omar, it has banned everything from kite flying to singing and dancing at weddings. Rashid is for the most part an objective reporter, though his rage sometimes (and understandably) comes to the surface: "The Taliban were right, their interpretation of Islam was right, and everything else was wrong and an expression of human weakness and a lack of piety," he notes with sarcasm. He has produced a compelling portrait of modern evil. --John Miller

Taliban (Paperback) ISBN: 0330492217 (October 26, 2001)

Apparently two different books.

http://www.ahmedrashid.com/

I think people tend to forget how the Taliban came to power following the withdrawal of the Soviet forces from Afghanistan in early 1989.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Afghanistan

As early as the mid-1980's, CIA and other experts were beginning to warn about 'blowback', the unintended consequences of covert operations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)

 

[Astronuc]

It seems many/most events in the ME are somehow tied into the 'war on terror'. But some good news.

Fox News Crew Freed After Gaza Ordeal
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5645822

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip August 27, 2006, 11:44 a.m. ET · Militants freed two Fox News journalists on Sunday, ending a nearly two week hostage drama. One of the former captives said they were sometimes held face down in a dark garage, tied up in painful positions and forced at gunpoint to make videos and say they had converted to Islam.

Correspondent Steve Centanni, 60, of Washington, D.C., and cameraman Olaf Wiig, 36, of New Zealand, were dropped off at Gaza City's Beach Hotel by Palestinian security officials. A tearful Centanni briefly embraced a Palestinian journalist in the lobby, then rushed upstairs with Wiig behind him.

 

[Ascetic Anchorite]

This video sums-up the terror situation perfectly:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5792753647750188322&q=terror+storm

 

[Yonoz]

It seems many/most events in the ME are somehow tied into the 'war on terror'. But some good news.

Fox News Crew Freed After Gaza Ordeal
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5645822

Good for some.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1376195,00.html"

Two Fox News journalists were freed on Sunday in Gaza after a complex deal was hammered out between the kidnappers and the Hamas-led government of Prime Minister Ismael Haniyeh. The negotiations brought an end to the two-week-long hostage ordeal, but it may complicate efforts to free another captive — Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit — held by Palestinian militants.

In its broadcasts, Fox News often portayed the Hamas militants as terrorists, but the kidnapping of the two journalists, sources tell TIME, had nothing to do with Fox's perceived pro-Israel stance or a serious attempt, as the captors first demanded, of swapping the pair for Muslim prisoners in the U.S. Instead, the two newsmen were more likely the victims of a vicious feud between various Palestinian militias.

This is a good glimpse into internal Palestinian politics.

 

[Astronuc]

Something to ponder -

White House Freshens Anti-Terrorism Strategy
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5770630

All Things Considered, September 5, 2006 · In the second of a series of planned speeches on the need to confront the threat posed by terrorism, President Bush on Tuesday described the war in Iraq in terms of the military struggles of Europe in the 20th century.

Speaking in Washington, D.C., the president said there had been progress in making the country safer in the five years since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He also said that, even though U.S. actions have weakened al-Qaida since the Sept. 11 attacks, Americans must take seriously the words of the enemy.

Also Tuesday, the White House released a document titled the National Strategy for Fighting Terrorism, which says that America is safer than it was five years ago, but that significant threats remain.

In response to the president and the White House report, Democrats accused the president of failing the national security test. At a news conference at the Capitol, retired Gen. Wesley Clark said that the Iraq War has actually put America more at risk.

"Invading Iraq was an unnecessary war," Clark said. "It distracted us from what we were trying to accomplish in Afghanistan, and it's been counterproductive in winning the war on terror."

The White House dismissed suggestions that it is politicizing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as part of the fall congressional campaign. Press secretary Tony Snow says that terrorism is what Americans are talking about and that the president is simply presenting his case to the public.

But -

Book Explores Latest Jihadi Thinking
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5770651

All Things Considered, September 5, 2006 · Several lesser-known thinkers whose work is widely read on the Internet are more influential than Osama bin Laden in shaping the views and actions of Islamic radicals. That's the view of New Yorker writer Lawrence Wright, author of the book The Looming Tower.

I think it important to understand other peoples' points of view, something that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al refuse to do. Bush sees only war and conflict, i.e. beat the opposition into submission. This is precisely the mistake that the US made in Vietnam. Bush's way is wrong!

 

[McGyver]

For Bush to use that [facism] language is a sign that he is reaching out to the dittoheads, hannitized, and savaged wing-nuts in an attempt to energize the rabid base for the mid-terms.

As Alexandra mentioned in another thread, and I paraprase;

One must correctly identify a problem if one is to have any chance at all of solving it.

Precisely. Perhaps someone in the Bush White House can explain why this key figure now in the news, was arrested after and thought complicit then in the 911 attacks, but was mistakenly released:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14733525/

 

[Astronuc]

Assessment from abroad -

'War on terror' loses clear direction
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5319522.stm

In the five years since 9/11, a clear-cut and well-supported "war on terror" declared by President Bush has become confused and divisive.

Whereas Le Monde declared the day after 9/11: "We are all Americans now", a placard at a demonstration in London recently read: "We are all Hezbollah now".

American policy has had successes. The quick war in Afghanistan after 9/11 (now flaring up again in the south) toppled the Taleban and has denied al-Qaeda its training bases, which were important to it (base is what the word Qaeda means).

Al-Qaeda has lost much of its leadership. It has not toppled governments as it had hoped. Western forces have not left the Middle East, and in particular the government of Saudi Arabia, guardian of Mecca, which is probably Osama Bin Laden's ultimate target, stands.

Yet Western and other publics are left in fear, and rightly so. Al-Qaeda is no invention. Its impact - or that of its sympathisers - was seen not only in New York and Washington but in Bali, Madrid, London, Morocco, Istanbul and elsewhere.


The power of fear

Fear is a powerful motivating factor. Fear after 9/11 led to the Bush doctrine of the pre-emptive strike.

But this doctrine has not been endorsed by all.

Doubts, divisions and defections have developed among American allies. For many around the world, sympathy for the United States has changed into suspicion and, for some, even into hatred. The prisons at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, the treatment of prisoners, secret prisons and rendition flights all added to this feeling.

 

[Astronuc]

Iraq War Fueling Terrorism, Intelligence Report Says
by Debbie Elliott and Mary Louise Kelly

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6135344

All Things Considered, September 24, 2006 · A new assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies finds that the threat of terrorism has grown since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that the war in Iraq has spawned a new generation of violent Islamic extremists. In other words, the Iraq war made the overall terrorism problem worse.

The leaked report, a National Intelligence Estimate, represents the consensus view of 16 U.S. spy agencies. It was produced by the National Intelligence Council, a thinktank of the U.S. intelligence community.

The document is still classified but it reportedly paints Iraq as a breeding ground for Islamist radicals.

It's the first formal report that assesses the global trend of terrorism since the Iraq war began.

The leaked report is also expected to have political impact, with campaigns in the final six-week stretch.

It would seem that Bush and his cronies have thrown the proverbial 'gasoline on the fire' and made matters worse.

Interesting commentary in the program.

 

[Burnsys]

Great news for the bush administration, now they will have to buy more weapons, cut more civil liberties and invade a couple more countries.!

 

[ptabor]

... This is precisely the mistake that the US made in Vietnam. Bush's way is wrong!

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on a point here. I'll agree that we all need more understanding, but our failure to win the vietnam war is not related to this issue, in my opinion. It is related to our failure in avoiding the conflict in the first place, however. Ho Chi Minh asked for the support of the United States in its conflict with the imperialist french. We turned our backs, of course, and supported the french - which lead to a two decade+ involvement in a war.

Had we disregarded politics and bombed the north as extensively as we did the south, the vietnam conflict would have been winnable in so far as we could have defeated the ability of our "enemy" to fight back.

And so is the case with our modern war on "terror". A supreme lack of dialog and understanding has lead to our current situation. Understanding, to a point, will aid us in winning this war. By understanding i mean that we have to realize that not all muslims share this radical point of view and that most them aren't all that different from us westerners, on a fundamental level.

Understanding and dialog will not, however, destroy the ability of a sworn group of enemies to murder our citizens. This can only be done with rifles and bombs, in so far as those particular individuals are concerned.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a go-it-alone f the rest of the world attitude will prevail. We'll need the support of those nations that harbor, either voluntarily or not, those that seek to kill us. But I don't see talking to those people (the extremists) as a viable option for our self defense.

 

[turbo]

Understanding and dialog will not, however, destroy the ability of a sworn group of enemies to murder our citizens. This can only be done with rifles and bombs, in so far as those particular individuals are concerned.

Before the invasion of Iraq, though, the number of potential jihadists was small, and perhaps could have been monitored and controlled. According to newspaper reports yesterday and today, not only is the number of jihadi cells exploding, they have no association with al-Qaida, apart from a shared revulsion of US activities in Iraq and elsewhere in the ME, and their diversity and lack of centralization will make them very difficult to monitor. In other words, Bush's war, with its civilian casualties, torture, and suffering has been the perfect recruiting tool for potential terrorists.

This war was and is entirely unjustified. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, although the administration insinuates that it did in every speech about terrorism. If Bush wanted to punish the people who allowed al-Qaida to develop and flourish, he need have looked no further than his family friends and business associates - the Bin Ladens and the House of Saud. The fact that the Bin Ladens and relatives of high-ranking Saudis in the US were not allowed to be questioned by our intelligence agencies, and were the only civilians allowed to fly in the days after 9-11 ought to tell you something. If Bill Clinton had acted in this outrageous manner, the Republican Congress would have had his head.

 

[ptabor]

turbo,

I'm sorry if you got from my post that I support our initial action in Iraq. I assure you this is not the case. If it were up to me, we would never have gone there - but it wasn't.

 

[turbo]

turbo,

I'm sorry if you got from my post that I support our initial action in Iraq. I assure you this is not the case. If it were up to me, we would never have gone there - but it wasn't.

No, I didn't think that, but the idea that the only way to deal with armed resistance is with guns and bombs is part of the monkey-trap this administration has gotten us into. They are unwilling to even consider that any foreign-policy initiatives, dialogues, etc can be useful, so they "stay the course" and continue to kill Iraqis. This generates more hatred for the US every day, and as a result, our young men and women are constantly in harm's way, and we as a country face a far greater threat from terrorism than we ever would have had the war not been started. We must develop a rational plan to deal with the violence, so the situation can be stabilized and our troops can withdraw without triggering genocide. More bombs and guns is not the way, though with the present political situation in Iraq (thanks, Bushco!) our options are far more limited than in the first few weeks after the invasion. Bush removed the strongest stabilizing force in Iraq (Saddam) without thinking through the consequences of his actions. As a result, religious fundamentalists and political opportunists have filled the power vacuum and are polarizing and radicalizing their followers. If we had set about to rebuild the damage in Iraq and restore their infrastructure as soon as possible, and had not disbanded their military and police groups, we might have had a chance at keeping a semblance of order in Iraq.

As for the often-heard comparisons to Viet Nam: a little history is in order. During WWII, the US wanted help in driving the Japanese out of French Indo-China, so they turned to a patriot who had been fighting French colonial rule for years - Ho Chi Minh. The US intelligence community affectionately called him "Uncle Ho". When they asked him what resources they could supply him, he said that he wanted 12 Colt .45 ACPs with holster rigs to give to his lieutenants as a sign of the US support for their activities. All he asked was that after the war, the French would not be allowed to reclaim his country as a colony, so the Vietnamese could live in self-determination. Despite the great debt owed to the US by the French, the US did not follow through on their promise, and allowed the French to re-occupy "French Indo-China". Ho Chi Minh was not a communist - he was a pragmatist who fell in with the enemy of his enemy to try to drive foreign occupiers out of his country. If the US had kept its promise to that little band of freedom fighters after WWII ended, Viet Nam would have been our strongest ally in the region, and that nasty destructive war would not have occured.

 

[Astronuc]

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on a point here. I'll agree that we all need more understanding, but our failure to win the vietnam war is not related to this issue, in my opinion. It is related to our failure in avoiding the conflict in the first place, however. Ho Chi Minh asked for the support of the United States in its conflict with the imperialist french. We turned our backs, of course, and supported the french - which lead to a two decade+ involvement in a war.

Had we disregarded politics and bombed the north as extensively as we did the south, the vietnam conflict would have been winnable in so far as we could have defeated the ability of our "enemy" to fight back.

I was reflecting on the fact that the US should not have sent troops to Vietnam, nor invaded/occupied Vietnam. The US involvement in Vietnam was a gross miscalcuation motivated by the desire to 'contain' Communism, which seems to be predicated on the notion that Communism was some monolithic force.

Was the involvement in Vietnam motivated by a desire to defend freedom and democracy - Absolutely Not! The US supported various dictatorships, like it had done so in S. & Central America, Africa, other parts of Asia - all of which were cooperative with the US.

The war killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. The US could not have won in Vietnam unless it killed the majority of the population - which was on the minds of some military folk who wanted to 'bomb Vietnam back to the Stone Age'.

A Vietnames colleague who escaped from Saigon in 1973 after the fall told me that as far as he knew, the majority of S. Vietnamese supported Ho Chi Minh! He estimated 80% of S. Vietnamese wanted the US gone. How could the US have won if this was the case?

At the same time, democracy was not realized in the US, because African-Americans were denied participation as full citizens, well into the 1960's and into the 1970's in some parts of the southern US. This I saw first hand.

 

[edward]

The Nation -- Reality intrudes again. President Bush and his allies keep insisting that the invasion of Iraq was essential to winning the fight against anti-American Islamic jihadists. The government's top experts on terrorism and Islamic extremism disagree. As The New York Times reported on Sunday, a National Intelligence Estimate produced earlier this year noted that the Iraq war has fueled Islamic radicalism around the globe and has caused the terrorist threat to grow. In other words, Bush's invasion of Iraq has been counterproductive. Or put this way: the ugly war in Iraq that has claimed the lives of thousands of American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians has placed the United States more at risk.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060925/cm_thenation/3124395

According to other links this NIE was completed in April. I have a gut feeling that a lot of people didn't need this report to come to come to the same conclusion.

 

[edward]

Here is another NPR link on the NIE report. According to this report we are looking at another five years of growing terrorist activity.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6158281

 

[Astronuc]

Bill Let's U.S. Citizens Be Held as Enemy Combatants
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6167856

All Things Considered, September 29, 2006 · The new detainee legislation passed by Congress this week addresses who can be detained as an unlawful enemy combatant and what rights enemy combatants are entitled to. And it could have an impact on the president's ability to declare that an American citizen is an enemy combatant.

Presumably, there are already laws on the books regarding treason, so why does Congress need to give Bush additional powers?

 

[Astronuc]

War is expensive -

Report: U.S. Spending $2 Billion a Week in Iraq
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6159989

Day to Day, September 28, 2006 · A new analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service shows the continued U.S.-led occupation of Iraq is now costing U.S. taxpayers almost $2 billion per week -- an increase of 20 percent from 2005.

Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, talks with Madeleine Brand about where the money's going and how much more might be needed.

And -

U.S. Military Questions Iraqi Government's Resolve
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6158278

Morning Edition, September 28, 2006 · The U.S. military says it can't leave Iraq until there's a stronger government in place. But over the past few weeks, U.S. commanders have repeatedly expressed frustration with the Iraqi government. They say Iraq's government hasn't been able to provide essential services, weed out corruption or rein in brutal militias.

Well, I guess it's not going according to plan. Oh, yeah . . . what plan?

Meanwhile -

Poll: Iraqis Want U.S. Out, Strong Leadership
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6154791

All Things Considered, September 27, 2006 · A new opinion poll shows that most Iraqis want American troops to withdraw from the country within a year. It shows growing confidence in Iraq's own security forces, as well as broad support for a strong central government, despite the push by Shiite and Kurdish political leaders for greater regional autonomy.

Majorities among Iraq's Sunnis, Shia and Kurds want the government to disband militias. And large majorities, even among Iraq's Sunnis, oppose al-Qaida in Iraq.

The poll was commissioned by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland and was conducted in Iraq earlier this month.

 

[Astronuc]

From - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/interviews/tomsen.html

It was known [after the bombing in Afghanistan started] that [the Taliban and Al Qaeda] would come back to Pakistan after we drove them out. Why didn't we go after them? I mean, there were American military commanders, I understand, who wanted to go push into the tribal areas and go after these guys.

That would be disastrous.

Why?

For the same reason it was disastrous for the British and recently for the Pakistani military in South Waziristan. When you go into these areas, you're, like, in the middle of another guerrilla war which you can't win. And as you know, if a conventional army does not win and a guerrilla force survives, then the conventional army loses.

Let's say we put our foot down and say, "You've got to clean this area up." If we can't do it, if our military would be pinned down in a guerrilla war, who's going to take back the tribal areas?

The sources that are keeping this infrastructure in place along the frontier are Pakistani. It's the ISI; it's the religious parties in Pakistan. It's still a lot of Saudi and other private money -- not from the Saudi government, private money from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE [United Arab Emirates] that's flowing still into the region and which has been flowing for the last 30 years, sustaining those 10,000-plus madrassas and training camps along the border.

So if Pakistan wants to crack down, they can stop that funding from coming in which is sustaining the infrastructure, and they can crack down on the religious parties that are really the lifeblood of the infrastructure. …

. . . .

Can we have success in Afghanistan without addressing the question of Pakistan and the sanctuaries?

I don't think so. I mean, as long as the situation is like it is today, where the Taliban and these other anti-U.S. … extremist Afghans like Hekmatyar and Haqqani are able to use Pakistani territory to mount attacks into Afghanistan, it's going to destabilize the already fragile situation in the country left over from 23 years of conflict. Five years from now, we will be at the same position we are today, or it will be worse. So if we want to reverse this plateau situation or a negative trend that's under way in terms of security, certainly, inside Afghanistan, we have to start with Pakistan. …

Should we be legitimately worried that western Pakistan can become the kind of failed state that Afghanistan was before 9/11, harboring Al Qaeda, providing a base for global terrorist operations?

Actually, it already is. Various State Department terrorism reports have stated that the gravamen of world terrorism has moved from the Middle East to northern Pakistan. … Now those areas, too, will become a springboard for international terrorism. …

According to Bush, the US is winning. The reality seems to be quite the opposite.

So how long before Bush concedes that he was wrong (and has been wrong from the beginning)?

How long before Bush stops going down the same path of failure?

Could this be the October surprise? Rumsfeld out? Cheney resigns? Rice becomes VP? Set Rice up for 2008?

 

[Astronuc]

G.O.P.’s Baker Hints Iraq Plan Needs Change
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/world/middleeast/09baker.html

WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — James A. Baker III, the Republican co-chairman of a bipartisan panel reassessing Iraq strategy for President Bush, said Sunday that he expected the panel would depart from Mr. Bush’s repeated calls to “stay the course,” and he strongly suggested that the White House enter direct talks with countries it had so far kept at arm’s length, including Iran and Syria.

“I believe in talking to your enemies,” he said in an interview on the ABC News program “This Week,” noting that he made 15 trips to Damascus, the Syrian capital, while serving Mr. Bush’s father as secretary of state.

“It’s got to be hard-nosed, it’s got to be determined,” Mr. Baker said. “You don’t give away anything, but in my view, it’s not appeasement to talk to your enemies.”

Mr. Bush refused to deal with Iran until this spring, when he said the United States would join negotiations with Tehran if it suspended enriching nuclear fuel. Iran has so far refused. Contacts with both Syria and North Korea have also been sharply limited.

But the “Iraq Study Group,” created by Mr. Baker last March with the encouragement of some members of Congress to come up with new ideas on Iraq strategy, has already talked to some representatives of Iran and Syria about Iraq’s future, he said.

. . .

“He’s a very loyal Republican, and you won’t see him go against Bush,” said a colleague of Mr. Baker, who asked not to be identified because the study group is keeping a low profile before it formally issues recommendations. “But he feels that the yearning for some responsible way out which would not damage American interests is palpable, and the frustration level is exceedingly high.”

At 76, Mr. Baker still enjoys a reputation as one of Washington’s craftiest bureaucratic operators and as a trusted adviser of the Bush family, which has enlisted his help for some of its deepest crises, including the second President Bush’s effort to win the vote recount in Florida after the 2000 presidential election. Mr. Baker served as White House chief of staff, as well as secretary of state under the first President Bush.

Andrew H. Card Jr., President Bush’s former chief of staff, acknowledged recently that he had twice suggested that Mr. Baker would be a good replacement for Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. . . .

. . .

Given his extraordinary loyalty to the Bush family — Mr. Baker was present on Saturday at the formal christening of a new aircraft carrier named for the first President Bush — it was notable on Sunday that Mr. Baker also joined the growing number of Republicans who are trying to create some space between themselves and the White House.

. . . .

This is a pretty significant development!

 

[turbo]

G.O.P.’s Baker Hints Iraq Plan Needs Change
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/world/middleeast/09baker.html


This is a pretty significant development!

IMO, this is an attempt to feign a "new course" on the part of the Administration, giving some hope to Republican moderates, so they will at least go to the polls. I know lifetime Republicans who are thoroughly sickened by our needless aggression against the Iraqis and by BushCo lies justifying the slaughter and hiding the severity of the insurgency. Bringing in Baker could sway some of these fence-sitters into holding their noses and voting Republican in November, but anybody that believes that Cheney and Rove will quietly give up their control of the administration's "shoot first" foreign policy (with all the billions of tax dollars they can steer to their cronies) has not been paying attention for the last 6 years. That's not how these guys are wired. They are in this for personal wealth and power, with spin-doctors to tell us idiot citizens how their machinations are "good for America".

 

[Astronuc]

From the BBC - - Bush's Iraq options limited
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5415638.stm

A warning by a senior Republican senator that "bold decisions" will be required on Iraq if progress is not made soon has prompted talk that the White House might be forced into policy changes after the mid-term elections in November.

Among the options is one to divide Iraq up into three loosely federated parts -- Shia, Sunni and Kurd. That has some serious drawbacks.

But some change is in the political air in Washington. The former US Secretary of State James Baker, who co-chairs a panel tasked by Congress to examine options, said on ABC News over the weekend: "I think it's fair to say our commission believes that there are alternatives between the stated alternatives, the ones that are out there in the political debate, of 'stay the course' and 'cut and run.'"

Mr Baker's commission is due to report after the mid-term elections. It could be the peg on which a shift of approach is hung.

The co-chair Democrat Lee Hamilton has been critical of the Iraqi government's performance. "The Iraqi government must act," said Mr Hamilton in September. "The government of Iraq needs to show its own citizens soon, and the citizens of the United States, that it is deserving of continued support.''

The problem for President George W Bush was illustrated by an example only this last week.

The hope that US troops would be "stood down" as Iraqi troops "stood up" was turned upside down. It was an Iraqi police unit in Baghdad that was stood down, because of suspicions that it was condoning militia murders. If the US cannot rely on the Iraqis, then the policy of transferring responsibility has no prospect of success.

The president's options are limited.

There are at least four wars going on Iraq - the war by jihadists against US troops, the war by nationalists against US troops, the war by Sunni jihadists against Shias and the war by Shia militias against Sunnis.

Any action he takes to alleviate one area could impact on another.
. . . .

 

[turbo]

There are at least four wars going on Iraq - the war by jihadists against US troops, the war by nationalists against US troops, the war by Sunni jihadists against Shias and the war by Shia militias against Sunnis.

There are complicating factors in each of these wars that limit US options. For instance, it appears that the Iraqi police are complicit in and/or are directly responsible for abductions, torture, and mass executions of Sunnis.

The administration disbanded the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police forces that could have helped restore calm in the early months of the occupation, and instead of establishing an interim government with a resonable mix of parties, they banned Baathists from public office, guaranteeing that they would be outraged by their total disenfranchisement. What did Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld think that armed out-of-work policemen and soldiers would do when their neighborhoods are occupied or are attacked by rival groups? Remember, these are people who used to have reliable potable water, sanitation, electricity, and fuel. They also used to be able to send their children to school and attend religious services and socialize in cafes, etc without fear of being murdered. That's all gone now.

The tactics used by these people may be similar to attacks characterized as "terrorist attacks" in the popular press, but their motivations are widely disparate. As such, lumping all these attacks together as "terrorism" is overly simplistic and practically guarantees that the US responses will be inappropriate, fueling more violence. This administration claims "we will not bargain with terrorists", but the sad fact is that they label anybody who promotes armed resistance against "favored" groups as terrorists, regardless of the nature of their grievances, and the lack of diplomacy and negotiation ensures the perpetuation of violence.

 

[Astronuc]

On the road with the Taleban
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6069842.stm

Nato troops in Afghanistan have been facing a growing number of suicide bomb attacks. It was hoped the troops would be able to make peace, win friends and provide security for reconstruction projects, but now it seems the regime they removed is beginning to return.

"You destroyed our government and all because of just one guest in our country, Osama," said the man leading the war against the British.

We sat late at night in what must have been the women's side of a house commandeered for just that night by a man who stays constantly on the move.

The family were not there of course, but their presence was all around.

A Chinese-made sewing machine sat in the corner, and small scraps of cloth littered the floor, mingling with the rinds and pith of pomegranates, which the Taleban soldiers who filled the room ate as we talked.

Mission not accomplished. The people who planned the attack on the US, bin Laden and al Zawahiri are alive and doing well. Meanwhile, the people who didn't, namely the Iraqis, are not - courtesy of Bush, Cheney, Rumseld, et al.

 

[manbush]

I thought zawahiri was dead?
Isn't bin laden also dead? If not, we got him running and his "authority" falls greatly.
A war isn't complete in 2-3 years...I would say a decade or so (ex. previous wars). The fact is, we are making tons of improvement..media coverage however expose the negatives because they need the public, what better way to get massive views than to critize bush and cheney etc.

And people who state that we are in debt because of the war are wrong. We were heading into a recession when Clinton's era was done.

 

[Astronuc]

Apparently neither bin Laden nor al Zawahiri are dead, but very much alive, and they are not running. In fact, al Qaida with support of Taliban have grown stronger during the last 3 years, while the US occupies Iraq.

 

[manbush]

Grown stronger? Can you provide some citations to back that up?

Last I heard, Taliban didn't even exist after US forces beat what was left of them.