ProSimCo's newest release
eddys...@hotmail.com
For those who wondered what Pat Proctor has been doing during his
break from wargame development : he has written a book - to quote from
the blurb :
"In Operation Iraqi Freedom, insurgent and terrorist groups have
developed the capability to use small, relatively insignificant
tactical attacks, amplified through the megaphone of the media, to
erode the will of the American public to prosecute the war. This
capability has neutralized the overwhelming advantage the US military
has in firepower in Iraq by bypassing it completely.
This is ProSIM's first Kindle-exclusive title and my first full-length
book. This book is the culmination of over two and a half years of
study of the US military, the insurgency, and the media in Iraq,
including lessons learned from my first six-month tour in Iraq,
working on the front lines of the media war."
-
The book : Media War : The Media-Enabled Insurgency in Iraq
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Vincenzo Beretta
Vincenzo Beretta
Why this choice, BTW? I could understand "eBook format only", but why to cut
further the platforms the book can be read on?
Giftzwerg
says...
> Ah, grrr, scratch that: I do not have Kindle.
You can read a Kindle title on phones, pads, and PCs, too.
> Why this choice, BTW? I could understand "eBook format only", but why to cut
> further the platforms the book can be read on?
No idea. I should think it would be trivial to release it in every
format.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"A Democrat Party purged of any moderate members is exactly what we
want. We want Pelosi/Rangel/Waters/Weiner/Frank to be the face of the
party."
- Ace of Spades
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <ievukj$p8...@speranza.aioe.org>, reckallNOS...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> > Ah, grrr, scratch that: I do not have Kindle.
>
> You can read a Kindle title on phones, pads, and PCs, too.
>
> > Why this choice, BTW? I could understand "eBook format only", but why to cut
> > further the platforms the book can be read on?
>
> No idea. I should think it would be trivial to release it in every
> format.
I think it should be trivial as well to convert it to any other format
as well with a million converters out there
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Pat Proctor
> as well with a million converters out there
Gents,
The book will be out in other formats, too. I am working on a google-
book and a Nook format. We started with the Kindle version because
Amazon offers free readers for every imaginable platform. You can get
the PC reader here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=kcp_pc_mkt_lnd?docId=1000426311
PAT PROCTOR
ProSIM Company
http://www.prosimco.com/writing
Vincenzo Beretta
> Amazon offers free readers for every imaginable platform.
Thank you, Pat. This shows how little I know about Kindle, I guess. Bought
:o)
eddys...@hotmail.com
> The book will be out in other formats, too. I am working on a google-
> book and a Nook format.
Have you considered one of those print-on-demand services like lulu ?
Wouldn't cost you anything but it sure could help sell to people who
prefer printed books.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Scott
Mark Bestley
> > I think it should be trivial as well to convert it to any other format
> > as well with a million converters out there
>
> Gents,
>
> The book will be out in other formats, too. I am working on a google-
> book and a Nook format. We started with the Kindle version because
> Amazon offers free readers for every imaginable platform. You can get
> the PC reader here:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=kcp_pc_mkt_lnd?docId=1000426311
>
As the book has no DRM then the open source calibre
<http://calibre-ebook.com/> is be able to convert it to any other
format. (and for many eraders calibre is also te best way of organising
the ebboks)
--
Mark
eddys...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Could you report back in here about the book ?
Just asking because from reading the title and synopsis I fear that
this book would be kicking in open doors for me.
Wars, media and propaganda are not seperate entities - they've always
been interlinked, even long before the Crimean War, the poster child
of media influence on wars. Just one example : the eagerness with
which Roman emperors coveted the title "Germanicus"
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Pat Proctor
> <http://calibre-ebook.com/> is be able to convert it to any other
> format. (and for many eraders calibre is also te best way of organising
> the ebboks)
You are absolutely right that it is trivial to reformat the book for
other outlets. What is holding up release is that other e-book
outlets (Google and B&N) are not nearly as user-friendly or quick for
authors to publish content. Google is a multi-day process and I STILL
haven't figured out how you get stuff on the Nook. By comparison, it
took a day to get the book onto Amazon (plus a couple days while they
checked the quality/appropriateness of the content).
> Could you report back in here about the book ?
>
> Just asking because from reading the title and synopsis I fear that
> this book would be kicking in open doors for me.
>
I will absolutely keep everyone here abreast of the progress on "Media
War."
And you are absolutely right that the connection between the media,
the poplace, and war has been done to death. You are also right that
it goes way back. Part of my dissertation is the impact that
newspapers and political pamphlets had on the American Revolution.
And it probably goes even farther back than that.
This book is not about the people, war, and the media, though. It is
about how the enemy in Iraq and the American military fight in the
media battlespace. The former is really good at it, and the latter
sucks at it. That was the focus of 2.5 years of study, including a 6
month stint in Iraq, neck deep in the process. And that is what this
book is about.
Giftzwerg
@v17g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, pproc...@gmail.com says...
> > Just asking because from reading the title and synopsis I fear that
> > this book would be kicking in open doors for me.
> >
>
> I will absolutely keep everyone here abreast of the progress on "Media
> War."
>
> And you are absolutely right that the connection between the media,
> the poplace, and war has been done to death. You are also right that
> it goes way back. Part of my dissertation is the impact that
> newspapers and political pamphlets had on the American Revolution.
> And it probably goes even farther back than that.
>
> This book is not about the people, war, and the media, though. It is
> about how the enemy in Iraq and the American military fight in the
> media battlespace. The former is really good at it, and the latter
> sucks at it. That was the focus of 2.5 years of study, including a 6
> month stint in Iraq, neck deep in the process. And that is what this
> book is about.
I've read a good portion since I picked it up this AM[1], and "done to
death" is in no way characteristic of what I'm reading.
Sure, this topic has been beaten senseless since <name your year>, but
generally it's a *media* figure who's doing the pontificating. It's
refreshing to see a war-politics-media analysis from a military
perspective. Too often, military writers confine their discussions of a
particular war to units / actions / outcomes. But since (at least) the
Tet Offensive, the media-political impact of the battlefield has been
far more important than the raw military outcome.
[1] Guys. Please. The Kindle Store price is five bucks. No-brainer
city. You can't get a bottle of gas-station wine for five bucks. It'll
be worth five beans even if I think Proctor is fulla shit and we get to
wrangle about it online.
Vincenzo Beretta
I read only the introductory chapter (labeled "Chepter 1"), and browsed the
rest. Superficial impressions:
A) *VERY* well written. Clear, factual prose, and not dry. It's a pleasure
to read.
B) Some interesting diagrams in color. When Pat refers to "Media
Battlespace" it is not an abstract concept, but you get a drawing showing
how the various elements relate to each other (Support for the troops,
coverage, friendly and enemy constituency, etc.)
C) As i said, I have only read the introductory chapter so I don't know if
the book then makes an in-depth comparison between the role of the media in
modern conflicts and the one they had, for example, during the Vietnam War
and WWII. IMHO, Iraq and Afghanistan are not the first wars where the media
were part of the battle space and "a way for an inferior enemy to bypass the
effects of superior firepower" (the Tet offensive comes to mind). I would
find very interesting to read a comparison at least with the media role in
the Vietnam War (Pat, if it is in the book, please don't spoil :o) ).
D) Bonus point: it begins with one of my favourite (and also most used in
RL) quotes ever: "It is true, I saw it on TV" said by DeNiro in "Wag the
Dog".
Overall, the book reminds me a lot of Jim Dunnigan's writings (both in style
and approach). For sure I recomend it to all those interested in the subject
matter. And, for the price of the electronic version, it's a steal.
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
Omnia Gallia in tres partes divisus est.
The whole book is propaganda. "How I Thrashed the Gauls and Re-Grew my Hair in only Thirty Days."
>
>Greetz,
>
>Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <20d2973d-d033-448f-a99a-dfc7cd5c3aa3
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Just asking because from reading the title and synopsis I fear that
> > > this book would be kicking in open doors for me.
>
> > I will absolutely keep everyone here abreast of the progress on "Media
> > War."
>
> > And you are absolutely right that the connection between the media,
> > the poplace, and war has been done to death. You are also right that
> > it goes way back. Part of my dissertation is the impact that
> > newspapers and political pamphlets had on the American Revolution.
> > And it probably goes even farther back than that.
>
> > This book is not about the people, war, and the media, though. It is
> > about how the enemy in Iraq and the American military fight in the
> > media battlespace. The former is really good at it, and the latter
> > sucks at it. That was the focus of 2.5 years of study, including a 6
> > month stint in Iraq, neck deep in the process. And that is what this
> > book is about.
>
> I've read a good portion since I picked it up this AM[1], and "done to
> death" is in no way characteristic of what I'm reading.
>
> Sure, this topic has been beaten senseless since <name your year>, but
> generally it's a *media* figure who's doing the pontificating. It's
> refreshing to see a war-politics-media analysis from a military
> perspective.
Good point. Sold.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Got it now, but what a PITA process it was.
For starters : I do all my shopping at amazon.co.uk to avoid customs
issues. They've got the book, but will only sell to UK customers ???
Ok, over to amazon.com. There they won't sell it to me because I've
got no kindle device registered with them. So I first have to install
this kindle reader software on a pc here at work - on which I won't
read this book anyway - the kindle software then crashes, won't let me
pick a directory to install it in, nor one to place the books in ...
long story short : got it to work at last - looking really forward to
repeating this process at home ... if it had DRM I'd be screwed
already.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 06:24:45 -0800 (PST), "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 23 dec, 20:25, "Vincenzo Beretta" <reckallNOS...@hotmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> > We started with the Kindle version because
> >> > Amazon offers free readers for every imaginable platform.
>
> >> Thank you, Pat. This shows how little I know about Kindle, I guess. Bought
> >> :o)
>
> >Could you report back in here about the book ?
>
> >Just asking because from reading the title and synopsis I fear that
> >this book would be kicking in open doors for me.
>
> >Wars, media and propaganda are not seperate entities - they've always
> >been interlinked, even long before the Crimean War, the poster child
> >of media influence on wars. Just one example : the eagerness with
> >which Roman emperors coveted the title "Germanicus"
>
> Omnia Gallia in tres partes divisus est.
LOL - yeah, a much better example.
> The whole book is propaganda. "How I Thrashed the Gauls and Re-Grew my Hair in only Thirty Days."
Our pal Julius was smart enough to make the conquest sound both hard
(the Gauls were formidable opponents) and easy (they're good, but I'm
better) and in a style that was very matter of fact as if he was
writing a military report and was just enumerating the facts.
But wars, media and manipulation predate all that - it wouldn't
surprise me to find out some cave painting was just Ugh boasting about
a mastodont kill while IRL he caught a couple of rabbits.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> long story short : got it to work at last - looking really forward to
> repeating this process at home ... if it had DRM I'd be screwed
> already.
As I dislike reading a book on a portable, I decided to convert it to
a simple Word doc (3 cheers for no DRM) and printed it out 2 pages
reduced to 1 for all in all 80 pages of rather dense printed text with
only the odd graphic breaking things up.
Leafing through it I see this is no fluffy stuff you are able to
digest in an evening. That's a good point in my book already.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
Well, certainly examples with unquestionable ( "Hey, I had it written on the walls. It MUST be true!") proof go back as
far as Rameses II.
eddys...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> > Could you report back in here about the book ?
>
> I read only the introductory chapter (labeled "Chepter 1"), and browsed the
> rest. Superficial impressions:
>
> A) *VERY* well written. Clear, factual prose, and not dry. It's a pleasure
> to read.
Sure is. Finished the first chapter as well and Mr Proctor doesn't
mince words - short and to the point prose.
I know about having to delineate your subject and not being able to
cover everything in a book of less than 200 pages but I already
identified a few shortcomings.
The book states as its purpose to look for answers, to try to
understand media-enabled insurgency and come up with ways for the US
army to combat it in order to win the media war.
That's all fine, but then the first step should be to determine all
participants in this war - both active and passive. What is curiously
missing are the "neutral players" - those countries and populations
not directly affected by the war, but who's opinion or view of it also
has an influence on America and its politicians.
All the more curious is this absence since the author states that "A
military force waging war in the media battlespace should always
assume that any action it takes will be seen by everyone, not just the
target audience".
I also don't buy it that previous insurgencies in history targetted
the leadership of the country involved and not its population and that
therefore this war in Iraq is somehow different. With all due respect,
but that's bollocks imho - the "cost" of maintaining an occupation
force in a foreign country has always been a political cost and every
ruler, no matter how absolute, has at some point take into account how
his population feels about things. In other words : I feel this
separation of public and politicians is artificial.
I also feel that the author (and the US military) is needlessly
limiting himself in looking for answers if you state up front that
particular laws prohibit psychological operations targetted at the US
population. I'm not saying they should, I'm just saying that laws can
be changed and that when you're fighting a war - and the US is
fighting one - you mustn't be holier than the pope, especially when as
stated "people form opinions about policy matters based on
perception". So you don't limit your search for answers to only
include those which are politically correct at the moment - you look
for all answers, their impact and feasability and then you can
determine that some things aren't such a good idea after all.
I hope I'm not giving the impression I don't like this book - on the
contrary - very thought provoking and a strong basis for discussion -
on to chapter 2 tonight.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
>On 24 dec, 19:32, "Vincenzo Beretta" <reckallNOS...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> > Could you report back in here about the book ?
>>
>> I read only the introductory chapter (labeled "Chepter 1"), and browsed the
>> rest. Superficial impressions:
>>
>> A) *VERY* well written. Clear, factual prose, and not dry. It's a pleasure
>> to read.
>
>Sure is. Finished the first chapter as well and Mr Proctor doesn't
>mince words - short and to the point prose.
>
>I know about having to delineate your subject and not being able to
>cover everything in a book of less than 200 pages but I already
>identified a few shortcomings.
>
>The book states as its purpose to look for answers, to try to
>understand media-enabled insurgency and come up with ways for the US
>army to combat it in order to win the media war.
>
>That's all fine, but then the first step should be to determine all
>participants in this war - both active and passive. What is curiously
>missing are the "neutral players" - those countries and populations
>not directly affected by the war, but who's opinion or view of it also
>has an influence on America and its politicians.
>
I see my nation and myself as part of that grouping.
As such, I consider the exclusion or overlooking of "those countries and populations" to be a manifestation of USAnian
insularity and arrogance. This in turn reinforces the opinions I already hold.
>All the more curious is this absence since the author states that "A
>military force waging war in the media battlespace should always
>assume that any action it takes will be seen by everyone, not just the
>target audience".
>
>I also don't buy it that previous insurgencies in history targetted
>the leadership of the country involved and not its population and that
>therefore this war in Iraq is somehow different. With all due respect,
>but that's bollocks imho - the "cost" of maintaining an occupation
>force in a foreign country has always been a political cost and every
>ruler, no matter how absolute, has at some point take into account how
>his population feels about things. In other words : I feel this
>separation of public and politicians is artificial.
Do you see this as another example of the Vietnam-era USA right-wing extremist mantra "When you've got 'em by the balls,
their hearts and minds will follow"?
>
>I also feel that the author (and the US military) is needlessly
>limiting himself in looking for answers if you state up front that
>particular laws prohibit psychological operations targetted at the US
>population. I'm not saying they should, I'm just saying that laws can
>be changed and that when you're fighting a war - and the US is
>fighting one - you mustn't be holier than the pope, especially when as
>stated "people form opinions about policy matters based on
>perception". So you don't limit your search for answers to only
>include those which are politically correct at the moment - you look
>for all answers, their impact and feasability and then you can
>determine that some things aren't such a good idea after all.
>
>I hope I'm not giving the impression I don't like this book - on the
>contrary - very thought provoking and a strong basis for discussion -
>on to chapter 2 tonight.
>
>Greetz,
>
>Eddy Sterckx
Interested to read more of your opinions on this one, Eddy.
Pat Proctor
Thanks for the feedback. I DO appreciate it. This is my first time
out of the blocks on a solo, book-length effort. I agree with almost
everything you had to say and, you are right, it is tough to fit
everything in a single book. I would, someday, like to take another
look at this question from the perspective of "neutral players," both
participant and non-participant countries in the war.
I do disagree with a couple points you make, and, since I am obviously
passionate about the topic, I will take a swing at a rebuttal.
> I also don't buy it that previous insurgencies in history targetted
> the leadership of the country involved and not its population and that
> therefore this war in Iraq is somehow different. With all due respect,
> but that's bollocks imho - the "cost" of maintaining an occupation
> force in a foreign country has always been a political cost and every
> ruler, no matter how absolute, has at some point take into account how
> his population feels about things. In other words : I feel this
> separation of public and politicians is artificial.
You are absolutely right that the populace of the counterinsurgent
country has always been a factor. In fact, a good deal of Clausewitz'
"On War" is dedicated to this topic. What I believe is different
about Iraq is that it is the DOMINANT motivation for attacks. In
2004, when the US was at its most vulnerable in Iraq and the
insurgency at its worst, a particularly effective IED might injure or
kill 5 soldiers. And this would happen maybe once a week, out of
hundreds of attacks. They were never going to defeat the US military
or even weaken it. The point of the attacks were to create casualties
and erode US public will to prosecute the war.
Compare that to Vietnam, where the US military was fighting pitched,
platoon- and company-sized (or larger) battles against formations of
hundreds of insurgents. The insurgents in Vietnam, even before the
NVA took over the war, had the capability to create areas of local
superiority where it had operated unimpeded. The point of the attacks
were to defeat counterinsurgent forces and create an area where the
Viet Cong could exert political control.
People often cite the Tet Offensive as an example of an enemy
attacking the will of the American people. But that is North
Vietnamese revisionism based on the result of the offensive. Numerous
historians have shown that the intended psychological target of the
offensive was the South Vietnamese people; the communists wanted to
ignite a general uprising against the South Vietnamese government.
I also wanted to expand on another point you raised.
> I also feel that the author (and the US military) is needlessly
> limiting himself in looking for answers if you state up front that
> particular laws prohibit psychological operations targetted at the US
> population. I'm not saying they should, I'm just saying that laws can
> be changed and that when you're fighting a war - and the US is
> fighting one - you mustn't be holier than the pope, especially when as
> stated "people form opinions about policy matters based on
> perception". So you don't limit your search for answers to only
> include those which are politically correct at the moment - you look
> for all answers, their impact and feasability and then you can
> determine that some things aren't such a good idea after all.
I actually delimited myself by excluding two possible solutions: (1)
propagandizing (PSYOP'ing) the US public and (2) lying to the public.
The former was done to a great extent in World War I and to a lesser
extent in World War II and Vietnam. But it was usually done by the US
government, not the US military. Being swayed or coerced to support a
public policy is politics; I don't want my military engaged in US
domestic politics, and neither do the American people. When
Westmoreland came back and "pitched" the war for the president before
the Tet Offensive, it destroyed US public support for the war and the
military. Solution #2 was done extensively during Vietnam. Progress
was oversold and setbacks were hidden. Body counts were inflated.
The public didn't buy it once television started covering the war from
the front and, again, it destroyed US public support for the war and
the military.
Again, thanks for the feedback. If you are enjoying the book, please
spread the word! You can leave reviews on Amazon here:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004GNFUWK
You can also leave more detailed comments at my blog:
http://mediawarfare.blogspot.com/2010/12/prosim-announces-publication-of-media.html
eddys...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 05:28:51 -0800 (PST), "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I also don't buy it that previous insurgencies in history targetted
> >the leadership of the country involved and not its population and that
> >therefore this war in Iraq is somehow different. With all due respect,
> >but that's bollocks imho - the "cost" of maintaining an occupation
> >force in a foreign country has always been a political cost and every
> >ruler, no matter how absolute, has at some point take into account how
> >his population feels about things. In other words : I feel this
> >separation of public and politicians is artificial.
>
> Do you see this as another example of the Vietnam-era USA right-wing extremist mantra "When you've got 'em by the balls,
> their hearts and minds will follow"?
No. I can't even make the logical connection here.
That being said, given the culture of submission to a higher/bigger/
stronger power engrained in islamic culture it might actually work
over there.
At least it did for Assad in Syria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre
I'm of course realistic enough to realize a "Hama" solution is
currently not possible, nor desirable. I say currently because I also
think it's inevitable that at some point in the not too distant future
some sort of nuclear device will detonate on US soil. Then the gloves
will come off and the islamic problem will be solved along the lines
of how the Brits solved the Thug problem in India : kill all the
leaders and hardliners and let the simple followers chose between
converting or sharing their fate. It would help if at that point in
time we wouldn't depend so much on oil anymore which is another reason
I push for replacing it with a nuclear/hydrogen combination.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Numerous
> historians have shown that the intended psychological target of the
> offensive was the South Vietnamese people; the communists wanted to
> ignite a general uprising against the South Vietnamese government.
Fair enough, unintentional consequence then. I'll rephrase it then as
"continuous small scale guerilla negatively influences the resolved of
the population of the force being attacked"
> I actually delimited myself by excluding two possible solutions: (1)
> propagandizing (PSYOP'ing) the US public and (2) lying to the public.
Lying will backfire, but in this media age you've got to get with the
program of "perception being everything" and there sure are things the
US military could do.
For instance : the Medal of Honor - it nearly never gets awarded these
days, for no apparent reason at all, yet it could (and imho should) be
used as a pr tool. Doesn't anyone in the US military know "Medal of
Honor" is just about one of the most popular video games these days ?
Finding soldiers who deserve it shouldn't be a problem, building a big
ceremony around the award shouldn't be one either. Who's stopping the
US Army brass ?
> Again, thanks for the feedback. If you are enjoying the book, please
> spread the word!
I finished the first part of the book and it builds a good case that
embedding journalists has a track record of working, while not having
them is a recipe for disaster.
Falluja II showed the US military has the capability to defeat media-
enabled insurgency so the correctly asked question then becomes : why
don’t they do that all the time then ?
You give a 3-part answer : doctrine failure, costs and historical
enmity between the military and journalists.
Again I must point out here that all 3 obstacles can be removed by the
US army itself - it doesn't need to look at anyone else to do it for
them.
And sorry to beat that dead horse again but "Sustaining of the public
will is not a responsibility of a military force in an operational
area"
and
"It is completely foreign to the American military mind that
influencing domestic politics might fall within the purview of a force
in the operational area, or the military at all, for that matter"
It's probably just me, but I think that's daft - there's a huge grey
area between not bothering with marketing/pr at all and turning the US
into a military dictatorship.
Finally, in the solutions chapter of the first part you try to look
for a solution "If the US military cannot fight in the media
battlespace, perhaps it should try to find a way to prevent the enemy
from fighting there as well"
Well, it's also probably just me again but the answers and solutions
you wrote about in the previous chapters, like "flooding the zone”
with embedded reporters *is* fighting in the media battlespace. And,
as Fallujah II showed us, this drowned-out the opposition. Semantics
probably.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Pat Proctor
I absolutely agree, and that is the point of the book. I hope that
will become clear when you get to the end.
And, you are right that I advocate fighting in the media battlespace,
but by means are indirect. The final solution I propose is not that
the US Army start running pro-war adds or trying to out-debate the bad
guys on the Internet. The second part of the book will illustrate why
that is never going to happen.
Instead, I spell out ways to blow up the 3 obstacles you cited at the
top of your post. I advocate using the US military's superior
influence with the media at the collector, reporter, and regional
bureaus to improve the context that the media provides with its
stories. The US military has to change its doctrine, spend some money,
and get over its issues with the media. That opens up a bunch of
additional opportunities the US military currently has forfeited.
ERutins
Purchased.
Regards,
- Erik
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Thanks Pat, this is a topic I am very interested in as well.
> Purchased.
I'm starting to think I should refrain from spoiling it for everyone
by giving away the plot :)
Finished it last night - didn't get enough sleep, but I just had to.
Not the smartest thing to do with a Warhammer Ancients Battle game
coming up tonight, New Year's Eve tomorrow and a sorta promise I'd
organize a game on January 1st ... oh, yeah, and manning the trenches
at work too.
Just one final remark : this is a book written by an army guy and it
shows - good and bad - it's pretty much a "listen up guys - this is
the problem - this is what we like it to be - these are the tools at
our disposal - this is the plan"
If you don't like that style, this book is not for you, but like Mr.
Giftzwerg correctly remarked : how many books have you read about the
military/media conundrum from the viewpoint of the military ?
Glad I changed my mind about getting it - recommended.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Graham Thurlwell
<snip>
> The final solution I propose is not that the US Army start running
> pro-war adds or trying to out-debate the bad guys on the Internet.
Get Beyonce to do an update of 'Fighting Sons of The Navy Blue' by Bob
Crosby and His Orchestra. That'll put the wind up Terry Taliban for
sure. ;-)
--
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.
nos...@jades.org /is/ a real email address!
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
>> The final solution I propose is not that the US Army start running
>> pro-war adds or trying to out-debate the bad guys on the Internet.
>
>Get Beyonce to do an update of 'Fighting Sons of The Navy Blue' by Bob
>Crosby and His Orchestra. That'll put the wind up Terry Taliban for
>sure. ;-)
Flood Al-Jazeera sites with up-to-date photos of Betty Grable.
eddys...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Hacking islamic extremist websites is actually discussed in the book -
Mr. Proctor considers it a bad idea given the USA-nians reluctance to
censor anything - free speech and all that - and while he makes a good
argument I think hacking and replacing their webpages with Bugs Bunny
going "what's up doc ?" or Daffy Duck showing them the Azincourt
archer's wave saying "up yours" would be very much appreciated by the
likes of me :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Pat Proctor
> Mr. Proctor considers it a bad idea given the USA-nians reluctance to
> censor anything - free speech and all that - and while he makes a good
> argument I think hacking and replacing their webpages with Bugs Bunny
> going "what's up doc ?" or Daffy Duck showing them the Azincourt
> archer's wave saying "up yours" would be very much appreciated by the
> likes of me :)
It is actually not so much that I don't think we should shut down
sites as it is that it is very hard to do. There has been a lot in
the press over the Wikileaks scandal that was not in the public domain
(and thus I couldn't write about) when Media War was written. The
bottom line of that coverage is that the government is powerless to
completely shut down Websites, even those in the US, unless they can
be shown to financially support terrorist networks (a cime). So a
site, even one posted in the US, can praise Osama bin Laden and show
video of insurgent attacks against Americans, and the US can't do
anything about it. The point I DO make in the book is that, even if
you change the law and make it legal to shut down these sites, it is
extremely easy for the site to switch servers and go right back into
operation. The whole Wikileaks saga demonstrates this in practice.
The site was shut down, purportedly by angry Web users (we will never
really know for sure who really did it) using denial-of-service
attacks. The site was back up within a few hours on a different
server. This has happened 5 or 6 times now.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> The point I DO make in the book is that, even if
> you change the law and make it legal to shut down these sites, it is
> extremely easy for the site to switch servers and go right back into
> operation. The whole Wikileaks saga demonstrates this in practice.
> The site was shut down, purportedly by angry Web users (we will never
> really know for sure who really did it) using denial-of-service
> attacks. The site was back up within a few hours on a different
> server. This has happened 5 or 6 times now.
I just happened to read an article about how the Iranian nuclear
program was completely de-railed by the Stuxnet computer virus. A
Mossad / CIA action if you believe the author of the piece.
Legal - illegal ? I dunno - but it seems to have worked.
And that's why I keep griping about limitting yourself in your book to
actions/solutions which are legal and/or acceptable based on how USA-
nians see things.
Fire-bombing Tokyo in 1940 ? Illegal and unthinkable. Did that stop
strategists from thinking about and putting on paper concepts about
warfare with long-range heavy bombers ?
Ok, I can see that your books is more about practical solutions given
the current state of affairs - things which could be implemented
really fast, like yesterday, because the window of opportunity may
already be closing.
On a side note about that : I personally think it's already too late
and that the best the USA could do is declare victory and get the hell
out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Nation building is a fool's errand
in such countries.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
>On a side note about that : I personally think it's already too late
>and that the best the USA could do is declare victory and get the hell
>out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Nation building is a fool's errand
>in such countries.
Completely agree, Eddy.
Of course, "declaring victory" is only a requirement for the US domestic political market.
Those of us who have read history know the reality but some people (sheeple they're called sometimes) will believe
anything.
eddys...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 00:34:27 -0800 (PST), "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On a side note about that : I personally think it's already too late
> >and that the best the USA could do is declare victory and get the hell
> >out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Nation building is a fool's errand
> >in such countries.
>
> Completely agree, Eddy.
> Of course, "declaring victory" is only a requirement for the US domestic political market.
>
> Those of us who have read history know the reality but some people (sheeple they're called sometimes) will believe
> anything.
The problem with the USA is that sometimes they so desperately want to
be liked by the rest of the world that wrong decisions are getting
made.
Take Iraq. I was and am wholly in favour of kicking Saddam out. But in
the immediate aftermath the US should have put a puppet on the throne
and gotten out on the next bus. The message to other regimes in the
area harbouring terrorists would have been clear : mess with us and
we'll kick you out.
Now, what they tried instead is to start-up a democracy in the ME from
scratch and poured billions of dollars into it. Laudable and if it had
worked it could have turned one of the most backward regions on the
planet on the path to enlightment. At the time I too thought they had
a good chance with Iraq being heavily secularised and with a
relatively highly educated population.
That turned out wrong. The thin veneer of civilization an all that but
the thing is that the US did the honourable and costly thing, and did
not play it safe in a Machiavellian style.
My final point : it has become apparent even given that they started
in the most favourable conditions, nation building in the ME simply
does not work. You can't drag a 10th century culture into the 21st,
even if you lubricate the path with billions of dollars. So my advice
at this point would be : call it quits and get out.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
@z9g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> Take Iraq. I was and am wholly in favour of kicking Saddam out. But in
> the immediate aftermath the US should have put a puppet on the throne
> and gotten out on the next bus. The message to other regimes in the
> area harbouring terrorists would have been clear : mess with us and
> we'll kick you out.
I think at the core of the "puppet" theory was a huge and vastly
mistaken assumption - that the Iraqi Army still existed in the late days
of the regime, and some suitable nationalistic general could be found to
seize power.
It wasn't until the actual invasion was underway that US leaders -
military and civilian alike - realized that the Iraqi Army was ... gone.
There wasn't one anymore. It had dissipated over the years, Saddam had
replaced it with fanatical militiamen, and the last vestiges evaporated
completely under Iraqi Freedom. And the Iraqi political world was in
even worse shape, Saddam having executed any credible opposition long
ago.
Puppet? What puppet? The only "candidates" were Baathist thugs and
terrorists who would have been *worse than Saddam*, at least in terms of
being able to keep a like on the Iraqi shithole.
[Restoring Germany after WW2 was a trivial exercise in comparison; hang
all the big Nazis you can find, discredit the rest, round up a cadre of
credibly non-Nazi politicians, and glue the Wehrmacht back together
under another name. Germany even had real bankers you could pour money
into.]
No, I think going for the "Big Casino" solution was nearly a no-brainer;
there simply wasn't anywhere else to go. Just pull out? You'll get
Afghanistan, only much, much worse - and in an important country that
can't just be written off. And you'll be back in six months.
Puppet? None available. Break up the country? Now you've got *three*
Afghanistans.
What was there to do except go for broke?
> Now, what they tried instead is to start-up a democracy in the ME from
> scratch and poured billions of dollars into it. Laudable and if it had
> worked it could have turned one of the most backward regions on the
> planet on the path to enlightment. At the time I too thought they had
> a good chance with Iraq being heavily secularised and with a
> relatively highly educated population.
>
> That turned out wrong. The thin veneer of civilization an all that but
> the thing is that the US did the honourable and costly thing, and did
> not play it safe in a Machiavellian style.
I don't think even Machiavelli could have found a credible puppet
wreckage of Saddam's wake.
In hindsight, it's easy to see what might have worked. At the end of
Desert Storm, there was pressure on Bush I to invade Iraq and oust
Saddam. I think that was a terrible idea, and would have led us down
the path we're on 20 years earlier. But Bush I did have an option that
would have worked:
Grab Iraq's oil fields. They're right there out in the desert. Don't
go near Baghdad, or Falluja, or any other place swarming with ragheads -
but the oil is out there in the desert. Run off the workers, *et
voila*.
Now we've got Saddam by the short and curlies. Oh, to be sure, the "NO
WAR FOR OIL" crazies would have gone, well, crazy; but they screamed
about this anyway. But without the oil, Saddam is neutered.
> My final point : it has become apparent even given that they started
> in the most favourable conditions, nation building in the ME simply
> does not work. You can't drag a 10th century culture into the 21st,
> even if you lubricate the path with billions of dollars. So my advice
> at this point would be : call it quits and get out.
I dunno. Iraq isn't looking in too bad shape these days.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Two years into his hopefully four year term, it's apparent to anyone
who's not a fucking idiot that Obama doesn't have a fucking clue what
the fuck he's doing. Far from being the Mr. Fix It, he's Mr. Fuck It Up
Worse. All the calumnies thrown at Bush - blundering incompetent idiot
retard chimp - apply fully to Obama. As they used to joke about Bush -
Obama is the idiot who broke the world."
- Ace of Spades
eddys...@hotmail.com
> What was there to do except go for broke?
Split it up in 2-3 parts ?
I mean, the Kurds today live in a de-facto self-governed country which
the USA and Europe for political reasons (Turkey) just can't call an
independent nation. They might have offered the same kind of silent
deal to both Sunni and Shiite tribal leaders - which, incidentally,
Sadam had left alone. Those tribal leaders have one weakness : they
aren't national politicians in the western way of thinking, but after
the fall of Saddam turning things over to their councils could have
worked.
> I dunno. Iraq isn't looking in too bad shape these days.
Sure. But ask yourself this : if Iraq fell apart into a thousand
pieces, why would this matter ?
Iran taking over some portions ? So what ? They can't threaten the
west anymore with an oil embargo as they can't eat their oil and need
to sell it as much as we need to buy it. Their population demands
western goods like tv's and cell phones. Iran's imports were 60
billion dollars last year - how are they going to pay for that if they
can't sell us oil ? With sand dollars ?
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
@l8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > What was there to do except go for broke?
>
> Split it up in 2-3 parts ?
>
> I mean, the Kurds today live in a de-facto self-governed country which
> the USA and Europe for political reasons (Turkey) just can't call an
> independent nation. They might have offered the same kind of silent
> deal to both Sunni and Shiite tribal leaders - which, incidentally,
> Sadam had left alone. Those tribal leaders have one weakness : they
> aren't national politicians in the western way of thinking, but after
> the fall of Saddam turning things over to their councils could have
> worked.
Kurdistan would have worked out, of course ... provided the Turks didn't
decide to just invade them. But Kurdistan is working *now*. There are
no significant problems up there, and the US presence is minimal; we
would have derived no significant benefit to an independent Kurdistan.
Indeed, the presence of the Kurds in Iraq proper dilutes that of other,
more unpleasant folks.
>
> > I dunno. Iraq isn't looking in too bad shape these days.
>
> Sure. But ask yourself this : if Iraq fell apart into a thousand
> pieces, why would this matter ?
Bought any gas lately? I mean, I know it inflames the WAR FOR OIL
nutballs when this is mentioned, but Iraq isn't just a useless pile of
rubble like Afghanistan; a significant fraction of the world's energy
lies buried under Iraqi sand. A functioning Iraq calmly selling oil
into the market is a not-insignificant factor.
And then there's the political dimension; as you point out, we've
expended no small amount of blood and treasure already - we're going to
just walk away? Emily Litella saying, "...never mind?" And consider
the uproar in the USA if Barack Obama were to preside over the
shattering of Iraq into chaos - you wouldn't need the right wing to boil
him in oil.
I think there's a sense that, with regard to Iraq, the heavy lifting is
already done. Why pull out now? It just barely made sense to do that
in 2003 ... but after all this time and trouble?
> Iran taking over some portions ? So what ? They can't threaten the
> west anymore with an oil embargo as they can't eat their oil and need
> to sell it as much as we need to buy it. Their population demands
> western goods like tv's and cell phones. Iran's imports were 60
> billion dollars last year - how are they going to pay for that if they
> can't sell us oil ? With sand dollars ?
The problem here is that you don't need anything like an embargo to
raise oil prices to levels that hurt us and help Iran; turmoil and chaos
spook volatile markets, and you can double energy prices overnight even
as supplies remain constant.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> > Sure. But ask yourself this : if Iraq fell apart into a thousand
> > pieces, why would this matter ?
>
> Bought any gas lately?
Sure, it's at about $7 a gallon - do you hear me complain ? :)
> I mean, I know it inflames the WAR FOR OIL
> nutballs when this is mentioned, but Iraq isn't just a useless pile of
> rubble like Afghanistan; a significant fraction of the world's energy
> lies buried under Iraqi sand. A functioning Iraq calmly selling oil
> into the market is a not-insignificant factor.
They're #16 in the oil producing ranking, right between Angola and
Algeria, countries nobody cares about if they would decide to split-up
into 2-3 parts.
> And then there's the political dimension; as you point out, we've
> expended no small amount of blood and treasure already - we're going to
> just walk away?
Depends on whether you see think cutting your losses is the best
option or if you think that with a little extra effort and push Iraq
can become a functioning nation again.
> And consider
> the uproar in the USA if Barack Obama were to preside over the
> shattering of Iraq into chaos
See, that's the USA-nian do-gooders obsession again - nobody over here
is losing sleep over Congo lying in ruins. I mean, it's certainly
commendable and fortunate for us that you guys worry about the well-
being of others so I'm not complaining, just pointing out that you set
yourself higher standards than the rest of the planet, then beat
yourself up about it if it doesn't work.
> The problem here is that you don't need anything like an embargo to
> raise oil prices to levels that hurt us and help Iran; turmoil and chaos
> spook volatile markets, and you can double energy prices overnight even
> as supplies remain constant.
Ok - you're right - so forget about those thousand pieces, what about
2-3 ?
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
@w2g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > Bought any gas lately?
>
> Sure, it's at about $7 a gallon - do you hear me complain ? :)
At what point do you start to complain?
> > I mean, I know it inflames the WAR FOR OIL
> > nutballs when this is mentioned, but Iraq isn't just a useless pile of
> > rubble like Afghanistan; a significant fraction of the world's energy
> > lies buried under Iraqi sand. A functioning Iraq calmly selling oil
> > into the market is a not-insignificant factor.
>
> They're #16 in the oil producing ranking, right between Angola and
> Algeria, countries nobody cares about if they would decide to split-up
> into 2-3 parts.
Yeah, but they're #4 in proven reserves, right between Iran and Kuwait,
and the potential for unending chaos would be devastating. Right now,
markets anticipate the Iraqi production to recover. If not?
> > And consider
> > the uproar in the USA if Barack Obama were to preside over the
> > shattering of Iraq into chaos
>
> See, that's the USA-nian do-gooders obsession again - nobody over here
> is losing sleep over Congo lying in ruins. I mean, it's certainly
> commendable and fortunate for us that you guys worry about the well-
> being of others so I'm not complaining, just pointing out that you set
> yourself higher standards than the rest of the planet, then beat
> yourself up about it if it doesn't work.
It's not a matter of "do-gooding" in a political sense, but that George
W. Bush and the surge had turned things around by the time he left
office. If Obama loses the plot now, he'll never escape the claim that
he "lost Iraq."
> > The problem here is that you don't need anything like an embargo to
> > raise oil prices to levels that hurt us and help Iran; turmoil and chaos
> > spook volatile markets, and you can double energy prices overnight even
> > as supplies remain constant.
>
> Ok - you're right - so forget about those thousand pieces, what about
> 2-3 ?
Not sure what you mean here. *Any* threat of conflict or chaos in the
Middle East sends ripples through the worldwide oil market.
Happens every time.
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
>On 3 jan, 20:33, "Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)" <n...@thistime.net>
>wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 00:34:27 -0800 (PST), "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On a side note about that : I personally think it's already too late
>> >and that the best the USA could do is declare victory and get the hell
>> >out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Nation building is a fool's errand
>> >in such countries.
>>
>> Completely agree, Eddy.
>> Of course, "declaring victory" is only a requirement for the US domestic political market.
>>
>> Those of us who have read history know the reality but some people (sheeple they're called sometimes) will believe
>> anything.
>
>The problem with the USA is that sometimes they so desperately want to
>be liked by the rest of the world that wrong decisions are getting
>made.
>
>Take Iraq. I was and am wholly in favour of kicking Saddam out. But in
>the immediate aftermath the US should have put a puppet on the throne
>and gotten out on the next bus. The message to other regimes in the
>area harbouring terrorists would have been clear : mess with us and
>we'll kick you out.
>
What appalled me was the complete lack of administrative planning done for the aftermath of the fighting. By 1944 the
lied Nations had a whole organisation AMGOT (Allied Military Government of Occupied territories) to oversee the whole
process of de-Nazification and orderly civil administration. The people who ran that clearly understood the difference
between making war and policing.
There was no equivalent in Iraq after desert Strm. One would have expected that he experience of desert Shield would
have triggered off a few logical and wiser heads SOMEWHERE in te USA to say 'this will be needed".
Didn't happen and the insurgents moved into the vacuum establishng themselves as the local authority and propagandising
the residents against the invaders.
It's an example of the old "7Ps Principle".
Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance.
Giftzwerg
n...@thistime.net says...
> There was no equivalent in Iraq after desert Strm. One would have expected that he experience of desert Shield would
> have triggered off a few logical and wiser heads SOMEWHERE in te USA to say 'this will be needed".
What was needed?
Exactly.
Pat Proctor
symptom of the Powell doctrine. We had core-dumped Vietnam and
forgotten hown original why to do counterinsurgency. It literally
never occurred to anyone to ask what we should do after we won.
A for the whole war, I agree with Eddy, at least in the ends (getting
out). I have spent 1.5 years in Iraq, and I still have no idea what it
has to do with ending the threat of international salifist jihadist
terror (the declared intent of the war one terrorism. And if the
Pashtuns want to be ruled by the Taliban, more power to them!
But, for more one that, you'll have to wait for the NEXT book.
PAT PROCTOR
ProSIM Company
http://www.prosimco.com/writing
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <8002c17f-3935-419d-884d-a32c10e5ebc7
>
> > > Bought any gas lately?
>
> > Sure, it's at about $7 a gallon - do you hear me complain ? :)
>
> At what point do you start to complain?
Crude oil is $90 per 160 liter, which is *cheaper* than bottled water
- so I know where to direct my complaining : at our greedy government
which taxes it at 300% over the real price.
> > > I mean, I know it inflames the WAR FOR OIL
> > > nutballs when this is mentioned, but Iraq isn't just a useless pile of
> > > rubble like Afghanistan; a significant fraction of the world's energy
> > > lies buried under Iraqi sand. A functioning Iraq calmly selling oil
> > > into the market is a not-insignificant factor.
>
> > They're #16 in the oil producing ranking, right between Angola and
> > Algeria, countries nobody cares about if they would decide to split-up
> > into 2-3 parts.
>
> Yeah, but they're #4 in proven reserves, right between Iran and Kuwait,
> and the potential for unending chaos would be devastating. Right now,
> markets anticipate the Iraqi production to recover. If not?
Go with my plan : start putting money into nuclear reactors to produce
hydrogen instead of wasting it on solar cells, wind turbines and
combatting "Global Warming"
> > > And consider
> > > the uproar in the USA if Barack Obama were to preside over the
> > > shattering of Iraq into chaos
>
> > See, that's the USA-nian do-gooders obsession again - nobody over here
> > is losing sleep over Congo lying in ruins. I mean, it's certainly
> > commendable and fortunate for us that you guys worry about the well-
> > being of others so I'm not complaining, just pointing out that you set
> > yourself higher standards than the rest of the planet, then beat
> > yourself up about it if it doesn't work.
>
> It's not a matter of "do-gooding" in a political sense, but that George
> W. Bush and the surge had turned things around by the time he left
> office. If Obama loses the plot now, he'll never escape the claim that
> he "lost Iraq."
I think he could always put the blame on Bush and get away with it
with 40% of the electorate :)
> > > The problem here is that you don't need anything like an embargo to
> > > raise oil prices to levels that hurt us and help Iran; turmoil and chaos
> > > spook volatile markets, and you can double energy prices overnight even
> > > as supplies remain constant.
>
> > Ok - you're right - so forget about those thousand pieces, what about
> > 2-3 ?
>
> Not sure what you mean here. *Any* threat of conflict or chaos in the
> Middle East sends ripples through the worldwide oil market.
Iraq is an amalgate of many tribes, but the primary division line is
Kurds up north, the Sunnis in the Bagdhad-Mosul area and the Shiites
everywhere else.
Giving the tribal leaders complete controll over "their" area
effectively means splitting the country in 3. As it's currently de-
facto already split in 2 with the Kurds up north doing pretty much as
they please and everyone liking the calm that brings with it, the same
could be done to the other parts of Iraq. Of course you can scratch
the word "democracy" from the Iraqi constitution then, but that's
beating a dead horse in that region of the world anyway.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> It literally
> never occurred to anyone to ask what we should do after we won.
To be fair : it never occured to anyone outside the USA either.
All the papers could talk about at the time was how the US was up
against the "4th largest army in the world" which was dug in and
prepared and waiting for them and had chemical / bacteriological
capacity and that it would be the toughest fight the US had faced
since WWII and that it wasn't even sure they'd win it.
The victory was so swift and sudden it took everyone by surprise.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
885b2b...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > > They're #16 in the oil producing ranking, right between Angola and
> > > Algeria, countries nobody cares about if they would decide to split-up
> > > into 2-3 parts.
> >
> > Yeah, but they're #4 in proven reserves, right between Iran and Kuwait,
> > and the potential for unending chaos would be devastating. Right now,
> > markets anticipate the Iraqi production to recover. If not?
>
> Go with my plan : start putting money into nuclear reactors to produce
> hydrogen instead of wasting it on solar cells, wind turbines and
> combatting "Global Warming"
I agree. But even if we aggressively go forward with nuclear power -
and we should - it's not going to replace oil overnight. Oil is going
to be fantastically important for the foreseeable future, any way we
slice it.
> > It's not a matter of "do-gooding" in a political sense, but that George
> > W. Bush and the surge had turned things around by the time he left
> > office. If Obama loses the plot now, he'll never escape the claim that
> > he "lost Iraq."
>
> I think he could always put the blame on Bush and get away with it
> with 40% of the electorate :)
I dunno about this. I think if Iraq collapses into anarchy and our
troops are suddenly fleeing, Joe Sixpack would be more likely to say,
"Wait a minute. This thing has been off the radar for two years - I
thought it was *won*?!?! What happened!"
> > > Ok - you're right - so forget about those thousand pieces, what about
> > > 2-3 ?
> >
> > Not sure what you mean here. *Any* threat of conflict or chaos in the
> > Middle East sends ripples through the worldwide oil market.
>
> Iraq is an amalgate of many tribes, but the primary division line is
> Kurds up north, the Sunnis in the Bagdhad-Mosul area and the Shiites
> everywhere else.
Ah. I see. But the problem is an obvious one; who gets the oil?
Giftzwerg
734873...@r29g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, pproc...@gmail.com says...
> A for the whole war, I agree with Eddy, at least in the ends (getting
> out). I have spent 1.5 years in Iraq, and I still have no idea what it
> has to do with ending the threat of international salifist jihadist
> terror (the declared intent of the war one terrorism. And if the
> Pashtuns want to be ruled by the Taliban, more power to them!
I think it had everything to do with one core idea:
"If you're going to have a war with lunatic ragheads, why not hold it in
Iraq?"
... which seems to have been a significant benefit of the Iraq War,
expressed quite simply in the question:
"Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a salafist Jordanian, was killed in Iraq; where
would he have been - and what would he have been up to - if not blasted
to bits in Iraq?"
My suspicion is that the answer is probably not, "In Amman, peacefully
making sandals."
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <6ba5ce4c-db12-43ee-b02c-
> 73487339b...@r29g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, pprocto...@gmail.com says...
>
> > A for the whole war, I agree with Eddy, at least in the ends (getting
> > out). I have spent 1.5 years in Iraq, and I still have no idea what it
> > has to do with ending the threat of international salifist jihadist
> > terror (the declared intent of the war one terrorism. And if the
> > Pashtuns want to be ruled by the Taliban, more power to them!
>
> I think it had everything to do with one core idea:
>
> "If you're going to have a war with lunatic ragheads, why not hold it in
> Iraq?"
>
> ... which seems to have been a significant benefit of the Iraq War,
I see this more as an unexpected and unplanned side-effect - a lucky
break.
... and it won't last. One of three things will happen
1) They're going to wise up to the fact that it's a lot harder to kill
American soldiers in Iraq, who have a tendency to shoot back, than it
is to kill unarmed civilians in the West. This is already happening
with big bomb plots being uncovered less than a month ago both in
Britain and in The Netherlands.
2) The "Media War Plan" of Mr. Proctor is implemented, sealing the US
victory, in which case they'll again go looking westwards
3) Iraq remains a smouldering sore costing billions of dollars each
year - how long before someone calls it quits ? Maybe not this
president, but almost certainly the next. When that happens - again :
go west
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <a177648d-39bc-462b-9385-
> 885b2bc06...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> > > > They're #16 in the oil producing ranking, right between Angola and
> > > > Algeria, countries nobody cares about if they would decide to split-up
> > > > into 2-3 parts.
>
> > > Yeah, but they're #4 in proven reserves, right between Iran and Kuwait,
> > > and the potential for unending chaos would be devastating. Right now,
> > > markets anticipate the Iraqi production to recover. If not?
>
> > Go with my plan : start putting money into nuclear reactors to produce
> > hydrogen instead of wasting it on solar cells, wind turbines and
> > combatting "Global Warming"
>
> I agree. But even if we aggressively go forward with nuclear power -
> and we should - it's not going to replace oil overnight. Oil is going
> to be fantastically important for the foreseeable future, any way we
> slice it.
Some guy here did a study on it. Oil as an energy source could be
replaced in 5 years in an all-out effort to convert to the nuclear/
hydrogen combination. For derivative products like lubricants and
plastics it's more difficult but if it's only going to be used for
those things supply difficulties are a thing of the past.
There's also the intrigueing theory that oil is not a finite resource
but that it's constantly being produced between particular layers in
the earth's outer layers.
> > > It's not a matter of "do-gooding" in a political sense, but that George
> > > W. Bush and the surge had turned things around by the time he left
> > > office. If Obama loses the plot now, he'll never escape the claim that
> > > he "lost Iraq."
>
> > I think he could always put the blame on Bush and get away with it
> > with 40% of the electorate :)
>
> I dunno about this. I think if Iraq collapses into anarchy and our
> troops are suddenly fleeing, Joe Sixpack would be more likely to say,
> "Wait a minute. This thing has been off the radar for two years - I
> thought it was *won*?!?! What happened!"
My 40% was based on the half-serious observation that either of the
big parties could nominate a real monkey and *still* get 40% of the
vote with people going "at least that monkey got principles" and "he
looks like he's a hands-on problem-solver"
> > Iraq is an amalgate of many tribes, but the primary division line is
> > Kurds up north, the Sunnis in the Bagdhad-Mosul area and the Shiites
> > everywhere else.
>
> Ah. I see. But the problem is an obvious one; who gets the oil?
Shell ? :)
I've been toying with this notion for a while : back in the days
companies like the British and Dutch East India Company had armies and
navies to defend their company's interests. The Chinese have no qualms
about hiring mercenaries to protect their growing investments in
Africa, and with China becoming more dependent on ME oil some local
warlord in control of the wells may strike a lucrative partnership
with them.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
b1ce58...@s4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > I think it had everything to do with one core idea:
> >
> > "If you're going to have a war with lunatic ragheads, why not hold it in
> > Iraq?"
> >
> > ... which seems to have been a significant benefit of the Iraq War,
>
> I see this more as an unexpected and unplanned side-effect - a lucky
> break.
>
> ... and it won't last. One of three things will happen
I don't think it needs to "last." I think they're scraping the bottom
of the barrel *already*, and all their best guys are pushing up dasies.
Certainly they quality of opposition in Iraq has fallen off to virtually
nothing.
> 1) They're going to wise up to the fact that it's a lot harder to kill
> American soldiers in Iraq, who have a tendency to shoot back, than it
> is to kill unarmed civilians in the West. This is already happening
> with big bomb plots being uncovered less than a month ago both in
> Britain and in The Netherlands.
Yeah, but look at the quality of the fucking retards they're sending out
on their missions these days. I mean, underwear-bomber man? He had
about two brain cells to push together. That dumbass Paki who tried his
hand at car-bombing in NYC? He wasn't exactly Otto Skorzeny, either.
Let these 'tards "go west." The most likely outcome is they'll blow
*themselves* up.
> 2) The "Media War Plan" of Mr. Proctor is implemented, sealing the US
> victory, in which case they'll again go looking westwards
>
> 3) Iraq remains a smouldering sore costing billions of dollars each
> year - how long before someone calls it quits ? Maybe not this
> president, but almost certainly the next. When that happens - again :
> go west
My point is that every looney towelhead that bought the farm in Iraq
would have *already* "gone west" if not for the fact that he was bird
food in some Iraqi ditch.
Giftzwerg
@s5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > I agree. But even if we aggressively go forward with nuclear power -
> > and we should - it's not going to replace oil overnight. Oil is going
> > to be fantastically important for the foreseeable future, any way we
> > slice it.
>
> Some guy here did a study on it. Oil as an energy source could be
> replaced in 5 years in an all-out effort to convert to the nuclear/
> hydrogen combination. For derivative products like lubricants and
> plastics it's more difficult but if it's only going to be used for
> those things supply difficulties are a thing of the past.
>
> There's also the intrigueing theory that oil is not a finite resource
> but that it's constantly being produced between particular layers in
> the earth's outer layers.
Ah, yes. Abiogenic hydrocarbons. I think the theory is perfectly
reasonable.
> > > Iraq is an amalgate of many tribes, but the primary division line is
> > > Kurds up north, the Sunnis in the Bagdhad-Mosul area and the Shiites
> > > everywhere else.
> >
> > Ah. I see. But the problem is an obvious one; who gets the oil?
>
> Shell ? :)
That would be the best solution, surely.
> I've been toying with this notion for a while : back in the days
> companies like the British and Dutch East India Company had armies and
> navies to defend their company's interests. The Chinese have no qualms
> about hiring mercenaries to protect their growing investments in
> Africa, and with China becoming more dependent on ME oil some local
> warlord in control of the wells may strike a lucrative partnership
> with them.
America should have created a "foreign legion" a long time ago. Well-
paid, well-equipped *non-Americans* we could send in to do the really
dirty work. Heck, we could recruit ten divisions tomorrow with the
deal, "serve ten years == US citizen."
Pat Proctor
> > victory, in which case they'll again go looking westwards
>
> > 3) Iraq remains a smouldering sore costing billions of dollars each
> > year - how long before someone calls it quits ? Maybe not this
> > president, but almost certainly the next. When that happens - again :
> > go west
>
> My point is that every looney towelhead that bought the farm in Iraq
> would have *already* "gone west" if not for the fact that he was bird
> food in some Iraqi ditch.
What is really going to happen in Iraq is directly related to this
"kill them there or kill them here" theory of fighting the War on
Terrorism.
There is a reason that PM Maliki is saying the US MUST leave at the
end of 2011. We did not "win" the war in Iraq if "win" is defined as
counterinsurgency doctrine defines it (i.e., making everyone support
the government and decide to settle their political disputes through
politics unstead of insurgency). All we did was convince everyone to
wait until we leave to settle their differences. As soon as we go,
the Shia government is going to try to monkey stomp the former
Ba'athists (i.e., every educated Sunni in Sunni Arab Iraq). The
former Ba'athists have been stockpiling weapons and money since the
Awakening movement (when they decided to quit attacking us and wait
until we leave). They are going to start an insurgency to a) stop the
Shia from monkey stomping them and b) break away from the central
government. While the Arabs are fighting eachother, the Kurds are
going to push out to the "Green Line" (where they think Kurdistan
should start) and fortify their boundaries with their very formidable
Peshmerga Army. We will be gone, so it is going to split into 3
whether we want it to or not.
The vast majority of Sunnis were fighting with al Qaeda in Iraq not
because they were salifist jihadists and they wanted to reestablish
the caliphate in the Islamic world. They were fighting along side al
Qaeda in Iraq because they didn't want to be ruled by Sunnis and al
Qaeda in Iraq was getting a lot of donations from across the globe to
fight us.
That leads us back to the "kill them there or kill them here" theory.
We MADE Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Before we showed up in Iraq, he was
just a two-bit terrorist. By being the right guy in the right place
when we invaded, he became the bank all of that global jihad money
poured into. That drew Sunni Arab Iraqis to him. The media glitz he
got from successfully standing up to Americans drew young Arabs from
across the Middle East who would have NEVER gotten on an airplane to
go to America. Our presence in Iraq was the biggest proof of the
salifist jihadist claim that the West was trying to dominate and take
over the Arab World, which convinced alot of those young Arabs to
strap bombs to themselves or drive VBIEDs into us.
In short, the "kill them there or kill them here" theory only works if
there are only a static number of "them." Showing up in Iraq made a
lot more of "them" (salifist jihadist terrorists) than there were
before we invaded Iraq.
Someone on this list earlier said that they would hate us even if we
didn't invade Iraq. That is absolutely right. The difference is they
wouldn't have the huge bank account to do something about it.
Giftzwerg
@i18g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, pproc...@gmail.com says...
> That leads us back to the "kill them there or kill them here" theory.
> We MADE Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Before we showed up in Iraq, he was
> just a two-bit terrorist.
... who had Lawrence Foley killed, and attempted to blow up a hotel, and
ran a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan.
And wasn't Mohammed Atta just a "two bit terrorist" before he
perpetrated a horrific terror attack that killed more Americans than
Pearl Harbor?
> In short, the "kill them there or kill them here" theory only works if
> there are only a static number of "them." Showing up in Iraq made a
> lot more of "them" (salifist jihadist terrorists) than there were
> before we invaded Iraq.
Oh, please. Shall I provide you a list of the miserable record of
raghead terrorist attacks on westerners before the invasion of Iraq?
The idea that it was "Iraq" that somehow provoked previously peaceful
towelheads into their murderous frenzy is too stupid for words.
> Someone on this list earlier said that they would hate us even if we
> didn't invade Iraq. That is absolutely right. The difference is they
> wouldn't have the huge bank account to do something about it.
Money has nothing to do with it. Bin Laden is the Warren Buffet of
terrorists, and what's it buying him these days? A Nigerian kid with
Semtex in his BVDs?
The point is painfully simple. The Islamist world churns out X
murderous barbarians every year. Where do we want them?
(a) In Iraq or Afghanistan, getting slaughtered by professional
soldiers?
(b) In an airliner headed for Detroit.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Someone on this list earlier said that they would hate us even if we
> didn't invade Iraq. That is absolutely right. The difference is they
> wouldn't have the huge bank account to do something about it.
Could have been me.
This is what I wrote 2 years ago with regard to the European attitude
of appeasment and the subsequent bombings in Madrid and London.
"Trying to appease these guys is obviously not working.
And here's why : because the West's very existence is a threat to the
imam's rule.
The people : we are poor - do something
Imam : it's Allah's wish you are poor (while I am rich - suckers)
The people : lookie over there, countries where the local imams have
little to say AND THEY ARE RICH
Imam : (oh, shit, they're on to me) - uh, uh, they are infidels, and
need to be destroyed - jihad ! - 72 virgins !"
-
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> The point is painfully simple. The Islamist world churns out X
> murderous barbarians every year. Where do we want them?
>
> (a) In Iraq or Afghanistan, getting slaughtered by professional
> soldiers?
>
> (b) In an airliner headed for Detroit.
(c) fighting the tribe next door over some sheep
The Byzantines managed to keep the barbarians fighting each other for
centuries through carefull bribes and fist backing one guy, then his
opponent.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Pat Proctor
> > We MADE Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Before we showed up in Iraq, he was
> > just a two-bit terrorist.
>
> ... who had Lawrence Foley killed, and attempted to blow up a hotel, and
> ran a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan.
>
I didn't mean we made Abu Musab al Zarqawi into a terrorist. I mean
we made him into a rock star.
> > Someone on this list earlier said that they would hate us even if we
> > didn't invade Iraq. That is absolutely right. The difference is they
> > wouldn't have the huge bank account to do something about it.
>
> Money has nothing to do with it. Bin Laden is the Warren Buffet of
> terrorists, and what's it buying him these days? A Nigerian kid with
> Semtex in his BVDs?
>
> The point is painfully simple. The Islamist world churns out X
> murderous barbarians every year. Where do we want them?
>
> (a) In Iraq or Afghanistan, getting slaughtered by professional
> soldiers?
>
> (b) In an airliner headed for Detroit.
Actually, money has everything to do with it.
Actually, getting into the United States if you are from Somalia or
the Middle East (or any third world country for that matter) is not
cheap. You have to bribe people in your home country to leave. You
have to have enough money in the bank and a clean enough record (also
requiring bribes) to get a US visa. You have to buy a plane ticket to
the US. If you are going to be as effective as one of the 19
hijackers, you have to have been trained in passible english and have
enough money to survive in the states til your plot is ready. If you
are going to coordinate with an agency in the Middle East like al
Qaeda, you can't use phones and internet. That means meeting in a
third country, more visas, and more plane tickets.
The best estimates of the cost of the 9/11 plot put it at millions of
dollars.
> > In short, the "kill them there or kill them here" theory only works if
> > there are only a static number of "them." Showing up in Iraq made a
> > lot more of "them" (salifist jihadist terrorists) than there were
> > before we invaded Iraq.
>
> Oh, please. Shall I provide you a list of the miserable record of
> raghead terrorist attacks on westerners before the invasion of Iraq?
> The idea that it was "Iraq" that somehow provoked previously peaceful
> towelheads into their murderous frenzy is too stupid for words.
They can be as pissed at us as they want. If they don't have America
planted in the Middle East, making their case for them that Islam is
under attack and it is the duty of every Muslim to contribute either
their money or their life to jihad, it is going to be alot harder to
recruit or drum up the funds to effectively attack us. Yes, they
attacked us before Iraq. Yes they will attack us after we leave
Iraq. But, with us NOT fielding two armies in the middle east, over
time, the salifist jihadists are going to sound increasingly extremist
and anachronistic to a Muslim population that is moving on with
modernization and liberalization without them.
But set all of that aside for a moment. Even if I stipulate that you
are absolutely right in everything you say, how does it end if we do
it your way? We stay in Iraq and Afghanistan for a thousand years so
we can fight them there instead of here. Are they going to give up or
get tired of fighting or decide they don't mind having us in their
countries? We are never going to kill our way out of the War on
Terrorism, no matter how hard we fight or how many Muslims we kill.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> They can be as pissed at us as they want. If they don't have America
> planted in the Middle East, making their case for them that Islam is
> under attack and it is the duty of every Muslim to contribute either
> their money or their life to jihad, it is going to be alot harder to
> recruit or drum up the funds to effectively attack us. Yes, they
> attacked us before Iraq. Yes they will attack us after we leave
> Iraq. But, with us NOT fielding two armies in the middle east, over
> time, the salifist jihadists are going to sound increasingly extremist
> and anachronistic to a Muslim population that is moving on with
> modernization and liberalization without them.
I tend to agree with this. Like I said before : Hollywood is worth 10
marine divisions.
> We stay in Iraq and Afghanistan for a thousand years so
> we can fight them there instead of here. Are they going to give up or
> get tired of fighting or decide they don't mind having us in their
> countries? We are never going to kill our way out of the War on
> Terrorism, no matter how hard we fight or how many Muslims we kill.
Especially Afghanistan - they've been at war with outsiders ever since
Alexander the Great and probably before that as well.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
@k22g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, pproc...@gmail.com says...
> > > That leads us back to the "kill them there or kill them here" theory.
> > > We MADE Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Before we showed up in Iraq, he was
> > > just a two-bit terrorist.
> >
> > ... who had Lawrence Foley killed, and attempted to blow up a hotel, and
> > ran a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan.
> >
>
> I didn't mean we made Abu Musab al Zarqawi into a terrorist. I mean
> we made him into a rock star.
Ultimately, we made him into worm food, and being a "rock star"
terrorist in Iraq in the interim is worthless.
> Actually, getting into the United States if you are from Somalia or
> the Middle East (or any third world country for that matter) is not
> cheap. You have to bribe people in your home country to leave. You
> have to have enough money in the bank and a clean enough record (also
> requiring bribes) to get a US visa. You have to buy a plane ticket to
> the US. If you are going to be as effective as one of the 19
> hijackers, you have to have been trained in passible english and have
> enough money to survive in the states til your plot is ready. If you
> are going to coordinate with an agency in the Middle East like al
> Qaeda, you can't use phones and internet. That means meeting in a
> third country, more visas, and more plane tickets.
OK, suppose I buy this argument. And suppose I also buy the argument
that invading Iraq poured eleventy-gazillion dollars into the terrorist
coffers.
So why isn't every airliner headed for the USA full of terrorists? Why
are the only terror plots that have been sprung lame-ass efforts by
idiots funded by less than my monthly Amex balance?
> The best estimates of the cost of the 9/11 plot put it at millions of
> dollars.
Cite?
>
> > > In short, the "kill them there or kill them here" theory only works if
> > > there are only a static number of "them." Showing up in Iraq made a
> > > lot more of "them" (salifist jihadist terrorists) than there were
> > > before we invaded Iraq.
> >
> > Oh, please. Shall I provide you a list of the miserable record of
> > raghead terrorist attacks on westerners before the invasion of Iraq?
> > The idea that it was "Iraq" that somehow provoked previously peaceful
> > towelheads into their murderous frenzy is too stupid for words.
>
> They can be as pissed at us as they want. If they don't have America
> planted in the Middle East, making their case for them that Islam is
> under attack and it is the duty of every Muslim to contribute either
> their money or their life to jihad, it is going to be alot harder to
> recruit or drum up the funds to effectively attack us. Yes, they
> attacked us before Iraq. Yes they will attack us after we leave
> Iraq. But, with us NOT fielding two armies in the middle east, over
> time, the salifist jihadists are going to sound increasingly extremist
> and anachronistic to a Muslim population that is moving on with
> modernization and liberalization without them.
I don't buy the central pillar of your argument; I don't think the
Muslim world *is* "moving on with modernization and liberalization." I
mean, what is you evidence for this? Where is the Muslim NY Times,
editorializing daily against the dangers of radical Islam? Where are
the crowds of Islamic liberals, burning Korans in support of free
speech? Where are the Muslim clerics, denouncing murder and riot by
Muslims who object to some fucking cartoon drawings?
So far as I can see, the Muslim world is trending *less* liberal. Where
else in the world can one imagine a woman being stoned to death for
adultery? The ragheads are about as "liberal" as the Spanish
Inquisition, and about as "modern" as the headsman's axe.
So I'm not buying it. I think "occupation" is an ex-post facto
justification for the same Muslim barbarism that we've seen all along.
> But set all of that aside for a moment. Even if I stipulate that you
> are absolutely right in everything you say, how does it end if we do
> it your way? We stay in Iraq and Afghanistan for a thousand years so
> we can fight them there instead of here. Are they going to give up or
> get tired of fighting or decide they don't mind having us in their
> countries? We are never going to kill our way out of the War on
> Terrorism, no matter how hard we fight or how many Muslims we kill.
As a soldier, though, you tell me: Do you want Muslims trying to blow
you up in Iraq? Or trying to blow your family up here in the USA?
Pat Proctor
> > dollars.
>
> Cite?
>
The 9/11 Commission Report:
The attacks themselves cost around $500k over 2 years, but it cost $30
million a year to run move the leadership of al Qaeda around to
coordinate attacks and $10-20 million a year to bribe the Taliban to
let them use their country as a base of operations. There is no
estimate for the cost of the terrorist training camps where the 19
hijackers trained.
> I don't buy the central pillar of your argument; I don't think the
> Muslim world *is* "moving on with modernization and liberalization." I
> mean, what is you evidence for this? Where is the Muslim NY Times,
> editorializing daily against the dangers of radical Islam? Where are
> the crowds of Islamic liberals, burning Korans in support of free
> speech? Where are the Muslim clerics, denouncing murder and riot by
> Muslims who object to some fucking cartoon drawings?
>
> So far as I can see, the Muslim world is trending *less* liberal. Where
> else in the world can one imagine a woman being stoned to death for
> adultery? The ragheads are about as "liberal" as the Spanish
> Inquisition, and about as "modern" as the headsman's axe.
>
> So I'm not buying it. I think "occupation" is an ex-post facto
> justification for the same Muslim barbarism that we've seen all along.
>
That is not the central pillar of my argument. And I actually agree
with you here.I don't see any liberalization either. It all stopped
once we occupied Iraq. We undermined the modernist arguments for the
Arab world to just get over their issues and join the rest of the
world in the 21st century. Liberalization *can't* get any traction
because we are making the salifist jihadists' case for them on why
everyone should "join the caravan" (Abdullah Azzam) and fight the
global jihad.
> So why isn't every airliner headed for the USA full of terrorists? Why
> are the only terror plots that have been sprung lame-ass efforts by
> idiots funded by less than my monthly Amex balance?
Why spend a whole bunch of money to fly all the way to America to
humilate us when you can humiliate us right in your own backyard. And
when the American people get sick of burying Soldiers and dumping
money down this bottomless pit and finally leave, al Qaeda will have
coffers full of money and the street cred of having defeated yet
another world Superpower. The salifist jihadists' global jihad
against the West will pick up right where it left off on 9/11. There
are over a billion Muslims. They will wait us out. We are never going
to kill our way out of this problem. THAT is the "central pillar of my
argument."
> As a soldier, though, you tell me: Do you want Muslims trying to blow
> you up in Iraq? Or trying to blow your family up here in the USA?
You don't get to ask that question until you've actually had a few
Muslims try to blow you up.
Dimensional Traveler
Raging Towelheads get better ratings for news programs than reports of
new schools and water purification facilities quietly opening. The
second is those who are "liberal Muslims" can move away from the Raging
Towelheads to places like the North America and Europe, which (to a
small extent) becomes a feedback loop. As the percentage of the
population that can be called Raging Towelheads rises, more moderates flee.
--
"There's something that doesn't make sense. Let's go and poke it with a
stick."
Giftzwerg
@p38g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, pproc...@gmail.com says...
> > So I'm not buying it. I think "occupation" is an ex-post facto
> > justification for the same Muslim barbarism that we've seen all along.
> >
>
> That is not the central pillar of my argument. And I actually agree
> with you here.I don't see any liberalization either. It all stopped
> once we occupied Iraq. We undermined the modernist arguments for the
> Arab world to just get over their issues and join the rest of the
> world in the 21st century. Liberalization *can't* get any traction
> because we are making the salifist jihadists' case for them on why
> everyone should "join the caravan" (Abdullah Azzam) and fight the
> global jihad.
Whaaaaat? Can you seriously be arguing that the bullet-train of Islamic
liberalization was derailed by Supervillain-Chimp Bush and his illegal
war against Brown People?
You're off your chump.
> > So why isn't every airliner headed for the USA full of terrorists? Why
> > are the only terror plots that have been sprung lame-ass efforts by
> > idiots funded by less than my monthly Amex balance?
>
> Why spend a whole bunch of money to fly all the way to America to
> humilate us when you can humiliate us right in your own backyard.
Hmm. What - exactly - do you find "humiliating" about US combat
operations in either Iraq or Afghanistan? How have the towelheads
"humiliated" us?
> And
> when the American people get sick of burying Soldiers and dumping
> money down this bottomless pit and finally leave, al Qaeda will have
> coffers full of money and the street cred of having defeated yet
> another world Superpower.
Exactly. If we turn tail and run. What are you arguing, here?
> The salifist jihadists' global jihad
> against the West will pick up right where it left off on 9/11. There
> are over a billion Muslims. They will wait us out. We are never going
> to kill our way out of this problem. THAT is the "central pillar of my
> argument."
> > As a soldier, though, you tell me: Do you want Muslims trying to blow
> > you up in Iraq? Or trying to blow your family up here in the USA?
>
> You don't get to ask that question until you've actually had a few
> Muslims try to blow you up.
[laughter]
They killed my college roommate on 9/11. He burned to death in Tower
II. Or was killed in the collapse. We'll never know. Mrs. G. is
sponsoring his daughter at UVM medical school. She was eleven years old
when the ragheads murdered her father.
So I get to ask that question; Muslims have been trying to blow me up
for fifty fucking years.
DirkG
>
> That leads us back to the "kill them there or kill them here" theory.
> We MADE Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Before we showed up in Iraq, he was
> just a two-bit terrorist. By being the right guy in the right place
> when we invaded, he became the bank all of that global jihad money
> poured into. That drew Sunni Arab Iraqis to him. The media glitz he
> got from successfully standing up to Americans drew young Arabs from
> across the Middle East who would have NEVER gotten on an airplane to
> go to America. Our presence in Iraq was the biggest proof of the
> salifist jihadist claim that the West was trying to dominate and take
> over the Arab World, which convinced alot of those young Arabs to
> strap bombs to themselves or drive VBIEDs into us.
>
> In short, the "kill them there or kill them here" theory only works if
> there are only a static number of "them." Showing up in Iraq made a
> lot more of "them" (salifist jihadist terrorists) than there were
> before we invaded Iraq.
>
> Someone on this list earlier said that they would hate us even if we
> didn't invade Iraq. That is absolutely right. The difference is they
> wouldn't have the huge bank account to do something about it.
>
>
> PAT PROCTOR
> ProSIM Company
> http://www.prosimco.com/writing
I admit I'm not an expert on this topic as you are, so help me out.
9/11 happened before the second Iraq war. Osama bin Laden was running
full-blown terrorist training camps in Afghanistan which is where 9/11
and other attacks were devised. He had lots of money and time to train
since the country he was in either ignored him or outright aided him.
And, reportedly all this terrorist effort was in response for the US not
being in Iraq, but because we were in desert camps in Saudi Arabia
protecting them from another Iraqi incursion, at their wish.
So, just the fact that Americans were defiling Islamic deserts with
their mere presence was enough to create terrorist #1 and fund a
multi-million plan to destroy America. Even when the US "pulls out" of
Iraq, there will be soldiers (or "trainers") left to help the Iraqi
government. So, based on past experience, that will be sufficient to
keep the hatred of the infidels burning and oil money flowing into
terrorist coffers. That, and the fact that Americans somewhere live and
breathe.
Pat Proctor
> their mere presence was enough to create terrorist #1 and fund a
> multi-million plan to destroy America. Even when the US "pulls out" of
> Iraq, there will be soldiers (or "trainers") left to help the Iraqi
> government. So, based on past experience, that will be sufficient to
> keep the hatred of the infidels burning and oil money flowing into
> terrorist coffers. That, and the fact that Americans somewhere live and
Before 9/11 we were doing *nothing* to stop international terror. That
is why they had the cash and the freedom of movement to perpetrate
9/11. I am not suggesting we go back to doing nothing.
Everybody keeps trying to reduce this to an argument over whether 9/11
was our fault. I don't believe that, and I never said that. Salifist
jihadists are evil, murderous, nihilistic zealots and nothing would
make me happier than to personally shoot every one of them in the
head. But unless we can convince them to all gather in an open field
and line up, that is not going to happen. So we need to stop thinking
emotionally about this problem and start dealing with the world the
way it really is.
My argument is that, what we DID do (invading Afghanistan and Iraq)
was the wrong approach. Rather than "kill them there instead of
killing them here," as we intended, we dramatically grew the salafist
jihadist movement and gave them even more resources. Further, I am
suggesting that this policy has no end. We are making jihadists way
faster than we can kill them. And we have turned al Qaeda from a
fringe group of extremists into the cause celebre of the Islamic
World. Everyday they withstand the might of the greatest military on
Earth, we do that more. I am also arguing that making Pashtuns in
Afghanistan reject native Taliban rule and embrace Western-style
democracy is a) never going to happen and b) in no way connected to
the original goal of stopping salifist jihadists from attacking the
United States.
I am NOT suggesting that I knew something in 2003 that everyone else
here didn't. I was as loud a cheerleader as anyone on this list, and
I went to Iraq (twice) as fast as I could to pitch in. But I can tell
you, after having been there, that we haven't "won" anything. They
are just waiting for us to leave so they can go right back to
fighting. And, whatever my personal feelings on Afghanistan, in a year
or so I will be go there, too, and I will do my damndest to fight and
win our nation's war.
However, what I AM suggesting, finally, is that, if you find yourself
in a hole, you should stop digging. There is no good way to stop
fighting the war, so we might as well bite the bullet and leave. Then
we can redirect all of those vast resources into suppressing the
terrorist threat through diplomatic and economic means, while we use
our massive global media dominance to empower moderates in the Arab
world. Everybody keeps saying that the War on Terrorism requires
generataional change in the Muslim world. Well, it is about time we
got started. It will be hard to overcome the damage we did invading
Iraq, but it will be 10 times harder if we stay in Afghanistan for
another decade.
(And it would be great to find some alternative to oil, too.)
Giftzwerg
> So, just the fact that Americans were defiling Islamic deserts with
> their mere presence was enough to create terrorist #1 and fund a
> multi-million plan to destroy America. Even when the US "pulls out" of
> Iraq, there will be soldiers (or "trainers") left to help the Iraqi
> government. So, based on past experience, that will be sufficient to
> keep the hatred of the infidels burning and oil money flowing into
> terrorist coffers. That, and the fact that Americans somewhere live and
> breathe.
... and Indians, Israelis, Britons, Frenchmen, Germans ...
Stone the fucking crows, but the towelheads have even targeted
*Canadians*. Can anyone imagine a less offensive country than
*Canada*?!?! I've lived practically my whole life right next to Canada,
and the only negative things I can say about Canadians is that they're
shitty drivers and sometimes wear white shoes.
Maybe there's a country or people somewhere that the towelheads aren't
pathologically pissed at, and actively trying to murder, but I'm having
trouble coming up with one.
There's a long-running and lunatic theory which holds that if only
<insert country here> would do <insert thing here>, then the Muslims
would stop trying to murder them. Whenever I hear this idiot meme, I
recall the final dialog between the US president and the captured alien
pilot in INDEPENDENCE DAY:
President: "What do you want us to do?"
Alien: "Die. Die."
Pat Proctor
> <insert country here> would do <insert thing here>, then the Muslims
> would stop trying to murder them. Whenever I hear this idiot meme, I
> recall the final dialog between the US president and the captured alien
> pilot in INDEPENDENCE DAY:
>
> President: "What do you want us to do?"
>
> Alien: "Die. Die."
So your suggestion is that we capture one of their flying carpets and
infiltrate Mecca to implant a virus...
Giftzwerg
603d96...@fo10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, pproc...@gmail.com
says...
> There is no good way to stop
> fighting the war, so we might as well bite the bullet and leave. Then
> we can redirect all of those vast resources into suppressing the
> terrorist threat through diplomatic and economic means, while we use
> our massive global media dominance to empower moderates in the Arab
> world.
Ah. So Katie Couric and the NY Times are going to somehow convince the
Muslim world to end the 1,000 year jihad against ... well, everyone?
Firstly, our "massive global media dominance" is composed entirely of
utter cowards who wet themselves at the very thought of publishing some
Danish cartoons that the ragheads are willing to murder people over.
These media idiots have long ago essentially thrown in with the Muslim
nutballs, to the point where a Bible in a toilet is "art," while a Koran
in a toilet is a "hate crime."
Secondly, the willingness of Islamists to murder means that a Muslim
"moderate" keeps his mouth shut, lest he end up dead. Muslims who dare
to reject radical Islam totally - Ayaan Hirsi Ali comes to mind - are
under a permanent death sentence. Encouraging these "moderates" is thus
worthless, since they aren't driving the wagon. And never will be.
Lastly, how - *exactly* - does the US media manage to "empower" these
moderates?
Giftzwerg
84acb1...@f9g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>, pproc...@gmail.com says...
> > There's a long-running and lunatic theory which holds that if only
> > <insert country here> would do <insert thing here>, then the Muslims
> > would stop trying to murder them. Whenever I hear this idiot meme, I
> > recall the final dialog between the US president and the captured alien
> > pilot in INDEPENDENCE DAY:
> >
> > President: "What do you want us to do?"
> >
> > Alien: "Die. Die."
>
> So your suggestion is that we capture one of their flying carpets and
> infiltrate Mecca to implant a virus...
Gotta work better than waiting for these barbarians to evolve from the
14th to the 21st century.
Pat Proctor
> "moderate" keeps his mouth shut, lest he end up dead. Muslims who dare
> to reject radical Islam totally - Ayaan Hirsi Ali comes to mind - are
> under a permanent death sentence. Encouraging these "moderates" is thus
> worthless, since they aren't driving the wagon. And never will be.
You are making my case for me now, Giftzwerg. Right now, because our
armies are planted in the Middle East, moderate voices are isloated
and vulnerable. Moderates aren't "driving the wagon" because we have
inflamed the passions of people in the Muslim world who would normally
be completely apathetic about Islam's history with the West.
Moderate's can't get any traction in that environment. They can only
speak up when they have the backing of a large percentage of the
population, built through mass politics (ala the Beirut anti-Hezbollah
protests in March 2005).
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,1034169,00.html
> Ah. So Katie Couric and the NY Times are going to somehow convince the
> Muslim world to end the 1,000 year jihad against ... well, everyone?
>
> Firstly, our "massive global media dominance" is composed entirely of
> utter cowards who wet themselves at the very thought of publishing some
> Danish cartoons that the ragheads are willing to murder people over.
> These media idiots have long ago essentially thrown in with the Muslim
> nutballs, to the point where a Bible in a toilet is "art," while a Koran
> in a toilet is a "hate crime."
> Lastly, how - *exactly* - does the US media manage to "empower" these
> moderates?
I am not talking about sending Katie Couric on a whirlwind tour of the
Middle East.
I am talking about using our economic might, or diplomatic weight, and
our technical dominance of the media battlespace to amplify Muslim
voices. Earlier in this thread, we talked alot about how we can do
this at the tactical level, through the internet. I also touch on
that some in "Media War." But I am dedicating a whole book, "Ideas to
Die For" to the topic. You can read a sample chapter and an outline
of the logic of the approach here:
http://www.prosimco.com/writing/images/ideas_to_die_for_proposal.pdf
The idea is to use diplomatic, informational, and economic means to
create an environment in the Muslim political realm that favors
moderate political forces and disadvantages salifists inside Arab
countries. Then we leave it to THEM to do the debating. I can't
really do the approach justice on a newsgroup post. It takes a book
to explain the history of the idea and how it works.
So, I concede. I can't explain how to win the War on Terrorism in 5
sentences or less (or through movie quotes).
Giftzwerg
822954...@r29g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, pproc...@gmail.com says...
> > Secondly, the willingness of Islamists to murder means that a Muslim
> > "moderate" keeps his mouth shut, lest he end up dead. Muslims who dare
> > to reject radical Islam totally - Ayaan Hirsi Ali comes to mind - are
> > under a permanent death sentence. Encouraging these "moderates" is thus
> > worthless, since they aren't driving the wagon. And never will be.
>
> You are making my case for me now, Giftzwerg. Right now, because our
> armies are planted in the Middle East, moderate voices are isloated
> and vulnerable.
See, this is where we're going to have to disagree. I think that "our
armies planted in the Middle East" is just the latest in an ongoing
series of convenient pretexts for Muslim murders. Remove them, and all
we'll find is that they choose another pretext for violence - and that
the violence occurs not in Iraq, but in Iowa. Or London.
Or Calcutta.
The Indian Army isn't anywhere except in India.
> Moderates aren't "driving the wagon" because we have
> inflamed the passions of people in the Muslim world who would normally
> be completely apathetic about Islam's history with the West.
Again, disagree. The so-called "moderate" Muslims aren't driving the
wagon because their zealous co-religionists will *kill them* if they
stray from the path of violent Islam. I don't think the position of our
military has anything to do with it.
> Moderate's can't get any traction in that environment. They can only
> speak up when they have the backing of a large percentage of the
> population, built through mass politics (ala the Beirut anti-Hezbollah
> protests in March 2005).
How'd that work out? Wait, what? Oh, the 2006 rocket attacks on
innocent Israeli civilians.
> http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,1034169,00.html
Heh. Much as I respect you - through your service, your game
development and your recent book - you ain't gonna get me to click on a
link to the lefty nutballs at Time.
I read your book. The moment I heard of it. Excellent ... but I
disagree with many of your conclusions. So we debate.
My chief objection is that I'm not convinced that, in an environment
where the opposition is actually willing to *murder* those on the other
side, there is a viable platform for real reform on a "media" basis.
Scott
extremists playing the role of moths.
However, the question of whether 9/11 would have been executed, had Desert
Shield and Storm not occurred, arises. Did intervention contain terrorism
as in the light trap interpretation or did it breed more of them, as some
are wont to assume.
We need a Terrorism suppression management game similar to what Floor 13
did for electoral politics.
Pat Proctor
> Shield and Storm not occurred, arises. Did intervention contain terrorism
> as in the light trap interpretation or did it breed more of them, as some
> are wont to assume.
A very interesting question. An equally interesting question is
whether 9/11 would have happened had the Soviets not invaded
Afghanistan. The jihad in Afghanistan brought the Muslim Brotherhood-
trained political salifists together with the Pakistani jihadists. It
was not until the two combined that salifist jihadism was born--the
idea that the only way to bring about Islamic states in the Arab world
was to destroy the West.
Scott
the Middle East for fuel, that changes nothing unless the root cause of the
dispute is linked to oil, which does not seem to be so.
The UN would not sanction genocide and no superpower would dare nuke the
place, so it will still be status quo, SNAFU.
Scott
> In article <b1cfc1d9-8dcd-4cae-9e31-
> b1ce58...@s4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
>>> I think it had everything to do with one core idea:
>>>
>>> "If you're going to have a war with lunatic ragheads, why not hold it in
>>> Iraq?"
>>>
>>> ... which seems to have been a significant benefit of the Iraq War,
>>
>> I see this more as an unexpected and unplanned side-effect - a lucky
>> break.
>>
>> ... and it won't last. One of three things will happen
>
> I don't think it needs to "last." I think they're scraping the bottom
> of the barrel *already*, and all their best guys are pushing up dasies.
> Certainly they quality of opposition in Iraq has fallen off to virtually
> nothing.
>
>> 1) They're going to wise up to the fact that it's a lot harder to kill
>> American soldiers in Iraq, who have a tendency to shoot back, than it
>> is to kill unarmed civilians in the West. This is already happening
>> with big bomb plots being uncovered less than a month ago both in
>> Britain and in The Netherlands.
>
> Yeah, but look at the quality of the fucking retards they're sending out
> on their missions these days. I mean, underwear-bomber man? He had
> about two brain cells to push together. That dumbass Paki who tried his
> hand at car-bombing in NYC? He wasn't exactly Otto Skorzeny, either.
Perhaps the capable terrorists are running the show and send their
incompetents to get caught. The resulting media circus and additional
repressive security measures do represent success as the target
population's appreciation of terror increases.
What are the victory conditions for terrorists? Is there an end goal or are
they simply trapped in the promotion treadmill where they need to fulfill
their quota of attacks per year to pass their appraisals and be considered
for promotion?
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
>Wait, say an alternative to oil is found and the world no longer relies on
>the Middle East for fuel, that changes nothing unless the root cause of the
>dispute is linked to oil, which does not seem to be so.
>
>The UN would not sanction genocide and no superpower would dare nuke the
>place, so it will still be status quo, SNAFU.
You need to factor in that the USA has consistently refused to accept the authority of any international bodies if they
do not toe the US line, so a US-sponsored genocide is a possibility that should not be disregarded.
UN sanction would have no status whatsoever if the US administration decided to proceed with a genocide, as is
frequently called for by the more radical political elements in the USA.
Recall also that the definition of genocide includes attempts to eradicate or otherwise target members of religious
groups just because they're members of those groups.
Giftzwerg
nospamh...@news.aioe.org>,
fujispamsonys...@nospamhere.com says...
> That is an interesting angle to Iraq, i.e. as a light trap with the
> extremists playing the role of moths.
>
> However, the question of whether 9/11 would have been executed, had Desert
> Shield and Storm not occurred, arises. Did intervention contain terrorism
> as in the light trap interpretation or did it breed more of them, as some
> are wont to assume.
>
> We need a Terrorism suppression management game similar to what Floor 13
> did for electoral politics.
To my mind, it's insane that we keep asking ourselves if perhaps 9/11
was somehow our fault.
It wasn't.
Let me just point out - again - that various raghead terror plots have
been hatched against *Canada*. I'm not sure I recall exactly how many
Canadian armies are brutally occupying vast sectors of precious Muslim
deserts, burning piles of Korans and peeking down burkas.
Heck, it almost seems like the towelheads are just a bunch of fucking
murderers, and keep killing because that's how they roll.
dougb
> In article <2034979661316233942.204552fujispamsonyspamjvcspamlive-
> nospamhere....@news.aioe.org>,
> fujispamsonyspamjvcspaml...@nospamhere.com says...
There have been a number of plots (amateurish to put it mildly), most
of them coming after the Iraq invasion and Canada's entry into the
Afghan war. Prior to that Canada doesn't seem to have been much of a
target of Muslim extremists, the prior terrorist atrocity having been
the destruction of AI 182 over the Atlantic killing hundreds of
Canadian citizens.
Have a look at the history of that if you want an example of a true
cluster-fuck of not only the initial 'intelligence' operations but
also the criminal investigation afterwards, including the deliberate
destruction of evidence by our outstanding intelligence and security
service CSIS and the utter incompetence of our RCMP. Frankly I don't
believe a word that comes out of western intelligence services -
calling them pathological liars would be a disservice to pathological
liars.
And there's the rendition of the completely innocent Arar by the U.S
so that he could be subjected to Syrian torture (with it appears the
assistance by our despicable intelligence services). Frankly from a
public safety perspective I think we'd be just as safe sending our own
security officials to Guantanamo Bay.
Best wishes,
Doug
Pat Proctor
> been hatched against *Canada*. I'm not sure I recall exactly how many
> Canadian armies are brutally occupying vast sectors of precious Muslim
> deserts, burning piles of Korans and peeking down burkas.
I absolutely agree with your main point, that it is silly to argue
about how 9/11 is our fault.
But I do have to point out that the bulk of the Canadian Army
(admitedly much smaller than ours) is sitting in Afghanistan right
now, just south of Khandahar (Taliban central).
Pat Proctor
> the Middle East for fuel, that changes nothing unless the root cause of the
> dispute is linked to oil, which does not seem to be so.
The vast majority of jihad money comes from rich Arabs in the Gulf
states. According to the Qur'an, it is the responsibility of every
Muslim to pay the zakat (I believe it is 5% of your income) and a
percentage of that money goes to the jihad. Some rich Arabs pay this
directly, to maintain their cred either on the Arab street or with the
mosque. Also, to be an Islamic bank, certified by Saudi Arabia, you
have to pay the zakat. That means that a small percentage of every
dinar that goes into an Islamic bank gets funneled to al Qaeda and the
jihad (often through a byzantine web of front charities). If petro-
dollars suddenly dried up, so would this jihadists' funding stream.
Moreover (I realize this is callous, but it's true), oil money
supports the burgeoning population in the Muslim world. If oil money
suddenly dried up, Arab governments would suddenly become unable to
support their populations. In the short term, these countries would
suddenly become completely dependent on the US (making them much more
helpful in the War on Terrorism). In the long term, the population of
the Muslim world would decrease, and Arab Muslims (the salifist
jihadists' recruiting pool) would become a much smaller percentage of
the total world Muslim population.
All of that having been said, I think, right now, replacing oil is a
pipe dream. I have not seen anything that could be adopted as a
replacement without asking Western populations to make severe
sacrifices (something that they have not, to date, seemed willing to
do). For now, we need to focus on dealing with the world the way it
is (with oil), not the way we want it to be (without oil).
Giftzwerg
@f2g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, pproc...@gmail.com says...
But I ask myself, "why are Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan?"
Can it be that the hegomonists in Ottawa grimly decided to conquer piles
of Afghan mud bricks? Is Canada short of rubble?
Of course not. Canada, as a NATO member, is in Afghanistan for the same
reason the rest of NATO is there; we (IE, the west) cannot allow a
hotbed of Islamist terror to exist.
But we can go 'round the twist on this subject. Thailand, for example,
is experiencing the usual wave of Islamist violence. What Arab lands
are being ground under the iron boot of Thai armies?
Giftzwerg
a4da16...@l7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, douglas...@rogers.com
says...
> And there's the rendition of the completely innocent Arar by the U.S
> so that he could be subjected to Syrian torture (with it appears the
> assistance by our despicable intelligence services). Frankly from a
> public safety perspective I think we'd be just as safe sending our own
> security officials to Guantanamo Bay.
If the guy was "completely innocent," then what's the problem with
deporting him to his native Syria? I can't imagine an issue developing
with a Syrian sent to Syria.
What could go wrong?
dougb
> In article <9da36804-b110-4aae-86f1-
> a4da164a1...@l7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, douglasbrun...@rogers.com
Because he was a Canadian citizen travelling on a Canadian passport.
Scott
state out of the Southeast Asian countries.
http://terrorism.about.com/od/groupsleader1/p/Jemaah_Islamiya.htm
Scott
going to Iraq. When a troublemaker decides to terrorise another, any
incident can be used as an excuse, or as another had posted, commiting
terrorism against USA just because USA exists.
Scott
Agreed that the UN, like the League of Nation prior are good ideas, on
paper. Paper, meet reality.
Giftzwerg
@j32g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, douglas...@rogers.com says...
> > If the guy was "completely innocent," then what's the problem with
> > deporting him to his native Syria? I can't imagine an issue developing
> > with a Syrian sent to Syria.
> Because he was a Canadian citizen travelling on a Canadian passport.
<shrug>
I'm still not getting where America fucked up.
dougb
> In article <f2e3a707-5046-4838-8a0f-297f4c97b8d1
>
> > > If the guy was "completely innocent," then what's the problem with
> > > deporting him to his native Syria? I can't imagine an issue developing
> > > with a Syrian sent to Syria.
> > Because he was a Canadian citizen travelling on a Canadian passport.
>
> <shrug>
>
> I'm still not getting where America fucked up.
>
> --
> Giftzwerg
> ***
> "Two years into his hopefully four year term, it's apparent to anyone
> who's not a fucking idiot that Obama doesn't have a fucking clue what
> the fuck he's doing. Far from being the Mr. Fix It, he's Mr. Fuck It Up
> Worse. All the calumnies thrown at Bush - blundering incompetent idiot
> retard chimp - apply fully to Obama. As they used to joke about Bush -
> Obama is the idiot who broke the world."
> - Ace of Spades
Renditioned an innocent man to Syria for the sole purpose of
torturing information from him - you'd have to be pretty dense or
depraved not to see anything wrong with that. Before renditioning him
managed to deny him consular access for two weeks as was his right
under international law.
When a country decides to do things like that the difference between
it and the terrorists decreases rather alarmingly. In a country that
respected the rule of law we'd expect to see those who participated in
this outrageous act punished rather severely. Sadly that wasn't the
case under Bush and it's not the case under Obama.
Perhaps some day?
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
>In article <f2e3a707-5046-4838-8a0f-297f4c97b8d1
>@j32g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, douglas...@rogers.com says...
>
>> > If the guy was "completely innocent," then what's the problem with
>> > deporting him to his native Syria? I can't imagine an issue developing
>> > with a Syrian sent to Syria.
>
>> Because he was a Canadian citizen travelling on a Canadian passport.
>
><shrug>
>
>I'm still not getting where America fucked up.
I am
US agents detained/restrained and kidnapped a Canadian citizen and sent him to a country where he could be tortured to
make him confess to <anything>, without the legal protections of an extradition hearing and all the protections that a
court grants.
We here in Australia held on to a US citizen who had been convicted of murder (the so-called "Honeymoon Killer" who
drowned his bride while on a diving exceursion on the Barrier Reef) and would NOT extradite him back to Alabama (or
whichever state it was) simply because that State still imposes a death penalty and Australia will NOT be party to
sending anybody (guilty or not) back to a death penalty jurisdiction.
There was a subsequent formal undertaking that he would not face the death penalty in the US if extradited and the
extradition procedings went ahead.
THAT'S the level of legal protections that formal extradition provides and that third-party rendition ignores.
That makes the US a rogue state.
The USA also fucked up with two other Australian citizens, Mamdouh Habib - completely innocent (as has been tested in a
court) but renditioned to Egypt for torture.
David Hicks - five years held in Guantanamo illegally until in desparation he made a "confession".
Fucked up
Rogue state.
Deserves to be firebombed.
Dimensional Traveler
> "Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)"<n...@thistime.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 03:42:10 +0000 (UTC), Scott
>> <fujispamsonys...@nospamhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wait, say an alternative to oil is found and the world no longer relies on
>>> the Middle East for fuel, that changes nothing unless the root cause of the
>>> dispute is linked to oil, which does not seem to be so.
>>>
>>> The UN would not sanction genocide and no superpower would dare nuke the
>>> place, so it will still be status quo, SNAFU.
>>
>> You need to factor in that the USA has consistently refused to accept the
>> authority of any international bodies if they
>> do not toe the US line, so a US-sponsored genocide is a possibility that
>> should not be disregarded.
>>
>> UN sanction would have no status whatsoever if the US administration
>> decided to proceed with a genocide, as is
>> frequently called for by the more radical political elements in the USA.
>>
>> Recall also that the definition of genocide includes attempts to
>> eradicate or otherwise target members of religious
>> groups just because they're members of those groups.
> Has the States actually followed through and attempted genocide
> though?
>
> Agreed that the UN, like the League of Nation prior are good ideas, on
> paper. Paper, meet reality.
>
puppet-masters veto power over opposing them. Witness Korea. :-P
--
"There's something that doesn't make sense. Let's go and poke it with a
stick."
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <daffca25-4f4f-40ef-b67c-
> 84acb1292...@f9g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>, pprocto...@gmail.com says...
>
> > > There's a long-running and lunatic theory which holds that if only
> > > <insert country here> would do <insert thing here>, then the Muslims
> > > would stop trying to murder them. Whenever I hear this idiot meme, I
> > > recall the final dialog between the US president and the captured alien
> > > pilot in INDEPENDENCE DAY:
>
> > > President: "What do you want us to do?"
>
> > > Alien: "Die. Die."
>
> > So your suggestion is that we capture one of their flying carpets and
> > infiltrate Mecca to implant a virus...
>
> Gotta work better than waiting for these barbarians to evolve from the
> 14th to the 21st century.
In 14th century Flanders women could own property and businesses, had
full inheritance rights, could drive a car ... well, ride horses but
you know what I mean, and even things like dowries were extremely
rare.
My point is that getting to the 14th century would be a serious
evolution from where they are today.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Firstly, our "massive global media dominance" is composed entirely of
> utter cowards who wet themselves at the very thought of publishing some
> Danish cartoons that the ragheads are willing to murder people over.
When you limit media to news media I agree - they're not helping - on
the contrary.
But when I say that Hollywood is worth 10 divisions of marines I mean
something else : you might not notice this, but practically every
Western movie oozes the Western Way of Life (tm) - that people with
ordinary jobs can have a nice house, a car and a flatscreen tv - that
women make their own choices - that corruption is being fought - that
people are free to do what they please etc and this appeals to
ordinary folk living in terminally corrupt and oppressive regimes.
I don't know if you're familiar with a British show called "Top Gear"
- it might say "car show" on the front but it's actually more like the
adventures of 3 oddballs and the crazy funny stuff they dream up with
cars. One of the last shows had them driving sports cars from Iraq to
Bethlehem - 3 wise men from the East style. In Syriah they had this
situation where they couldn't get started, not because someone was
stopping them for being dirty Ferengi, but because every Syrian wanted
to take their picture - the show is extremely popular over there.
I think stuff like that is significant. "Get rid of the religious
nutballs and you too could own a Porsche" is a powerfull message that
the West is broadcasting over there without even realizing it.
And that's why the religious fanatics go nuts as the very existence of
the West is threatening their hold on power. Their fight is with
Western ideas and ideals "poisoning" the faithfull.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
@j1g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, douglas...@rogers.com says...
> > > > If the guy was "completely innocent," then what's the problem with
> > > > deporting him to his native Syria? I can't imagine an issue developing
> > > > with a Syrian sent to Syria.
> > > Because he was a Canadian citizen travelling on a Canadian passport.
> >
> > <shrug>
> >
> > I'm still not getting where America fucked up.
> Renditioned an innocent man to Syria for the sole purpose of
> torturing information from him - you'd have to be pretty dense or
> depraved not to see anything wrong with that. Before renditioning him
> managed to deny him consular access for two weeks as was his right
> under international law.
"Renditioning" is your term. I'm calling it "deporting" this raghead,
and it was done based on information developed by Canadian authorities
which identified him as an al-Qaeda militant. The guy was Syrian, and
he was deported to Syria, and I don't give a rat-fuck what the Syrians
decided to do with him.
> When a country decides to do things like that the difference between
> it and the terrorists decreases rather alarmingly. In a country that
> respected the rule of law we'd expect to see those who participated in
> this outrageous act punished rather severely. Sadly that wasn't the
> case under Bush and it's not the case under Obama.
What law - *exactly* - was broken?
Giftzwerg
3afb21...@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says
> > > So your suggestion is that we capture one of their flying carpets and
> > > infiltrate Mecca to implant a virus...
> >
> > Gotta work better than waiting for these barbarians to evolve from the
> > 14th to the 21st century.
>
> In 14th century Flanders women could own property and businesses, had
> full inheritance rights, could drive a car ... well, ride horses but
> you know what I mean, and even things like dowries were extremely
> rare.
>
> My point is that getting to the 14th century would be a serious
> evolution from where they are today.
... and even in cave-paintings, women aren't depicted as wearing black
sacks from head to toe.
Giftzwerg
n...@thistime.net says...
> >I'm still not getting where America fucked up.
>
> I am
>
> US agents detained/restrained and kidnapped a Canadian citizen and sent him to a country where he could be tortured to
> make him confess to <anything>, without the legal protections of an extradition hearing and all the protections that a
> court grants.
US officials detained and deported a Syrian back to Syria because
Canadian officials suspected him of al-Qaeda ties. You don't
"extradite" a Syrian back to Syria, and no such protections apply.
What's the problem?
And since when - exactly - is *Syria* some sort of American help-mate?
I guess I missed the part where Syria threw in with the USA against
Islamist terror groups.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> I guess I missed the part where Syria threw in with the USA against
> Islamist terror groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre
Coincidentally, Pat Proctor has also written an interesting article
which deals mainly with Syria - and how the US could/should reconsider
their current strategy
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/Articles/08spring/proctor.pdf
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
dougb
> In article <fcae32f1-cde7-4dd9-bdc7-5cc2fdc8e1b2
Vienna Convention on Consular Access.
"1. With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions
relating to nationals of the sending State:
(a) consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of
the sending State and to have access to them. Nationals of the sending
State shall have the same freedom with respect to communication with
and access to consular officers of the sending State;
(b) (if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving
State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending
State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is
arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is
detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the
consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention
shall be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said
authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his
rights under this subparagraph;
(c) consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the
sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and
correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation. They
shall also have the right to visit any national of the sending State
who is in prison, custody or detention in their district in pursuance
of a judgement. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from
taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or
detention if he expressly opposes such action."
And deporting (if that's what you want to call it) is to the country
under whose passport the citizen is travelling on. Odly enough the
term 'renditioning' is that generally used by the United States
Government when referring to the practice of sending an individual to
a third country.
As to the Canadian intelligence services well I think I've already
adequately expressed my disgust at their involvement in the case.
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
>Has the States actually followed through and attempted genocide though?
Not .... yet.
Are you in a position to definitively rule out the possibility?
.
.
.
Neither am I.
>
>Agreed that the UN, like the League of Nation prior are good ideas, on
>paper. Paper, meet reality.
Sure. Group solutions only work if entities are group members.
Report card USA "Does not play well with others."
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
>In article <r80li61hsjfspasnp...@4ax.com>,
>n...@thistime.net says...
>
>> >I'm still not getting where America fucked up.
>>
>> I am
>>
>> US agents detained/restrained and kidnapped a Canadian citizen and sent him to a country where he could be tortured to
>> make him confess to <anything>, without the legal protections of an extradition hearing and all the protections that a
>> court grants.
>
>US officials detained and deported a Syrian back to Syria because
>Canadian officials suspected him of al-Qaeda ties. You don't
>"extradite" a Syrian back to Syria, and no such protections apply.
>
>What's the problem?
>
>And since when - exactly - is *Syria* some sort of American help-mate?
>I guess I missed the part where Syria threw in with the USA against
>Islamist terror groups.
You have consistently ignored the fact that he was a Canadian citizen, not a Syrian. His ethnic origins aren't the
point, his legal citizenship is and was.
You also ignored the examples of the two Australians also renditioned.
Oh yes, BTW "renditioning" is weasel-worded US politican-speak for political kidnapping.
It's illegal.
Giftzwerg
n...@thistime.net says...
> >What's the problem?
> >
> >And since when - exactly - is *Syria* some sort of American help-mate?
> >I guess I missed the part where Syria threw in with the USA against
> >Islamist terror groups.
>
> You have consistently ignored the fact that he was a Canadian citizen, not a Syrian. His ethnic origins aren't the
> point, his legal citizenship is and was.
Syria doesn't permit dual citizenship, or allow renouncing of Syrian
citizenship.; according to Syrian law, his "legal" status was as a
Syrian.
Surely you don't want us to flout Syrian law?
And let's be clear, here. The Canadians didn't want this asshat -
they're the ones who came up with the idea that he was involved with al-
Qaeda. So it's pretty obvious where the guy was headed. Yup. His
native Syria.
Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
> You also ignored the examples of the two Australians also renditioned.
What country was Hicks renditioned to?
> Oh yes, BTW "renditioning" is weasel-worded US politican-speak for political kidnapping.
>
> It's illegal.
<laughter>
Can I see the text of the no-"rendition" law passed by the US Congress?
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
>In article <a48ni6pe5iuen95u0...@4ax.com>,
>n...@thistime.net says...
>
>> >What's the problem?
>> >
>> >And since when - exactly - is *Syria* some sort of American help-mate?
>> >I guess I missed the part where Syria threw in with the USA against
>> >Islamist terror groups.
>>
>> You have consistently ignored the fact that he was a Canadian citizen, not a Syrian. His ethnic origins aren't the
>> point, his legal citizenship is and was.
>
>Syria doesn't permit dual citizenship, or allow renouncing of Syrian
>citizenship.; according to Syrian law, his "legal" status was as a
>Syrian.
>
>Surely you don't want us to flout Syrian law?
Since when has the USA ever paid attention to the laws of any other country?
>
>And let's be clear, here. The Canadians didn't want this asshat -
>they're the ones who came up with the idea that he was involved with al-
>Qaeda. So it's pretty obvious where the guy was headed. Yup. His
>native Syria.
Not want? what's that got to do with the legal status? Oh yes, you're Merkins, you ignore law and order as it suits you.
He was entitled to protection.
>
>Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
>
>> You also ignored the examples of the two Australians also renditioned.
>
>What country was Hicks renditioned to?
Cuba - after being tortured for a while in Pakistan under CIA supervision. (as you well know)
>
>> Oh yes, BTW "renditioning" is weasel-worded US politican-speak for political kidnapping.
>>
>> It's illegal.
>
><laughter>
>
>Can I see the text of the no-"rendition" law passed by the US Congress?
Look it up under the standard federal laws about kidnapping. Do your own research.
eddys...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
> Sure. Group solutions only work if entities are group members.
>
> Report card USA "Does not play well with others."
Group solutions only work if the well-meaning folks aren't outnumbered
by cretins and bullies.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx