DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on June 17, 2008, 11:08:33 PM
-
Iraqi security forces ramp up for Maysan operation
By Bill Roggio
June 17, 2008 1:55 PM
Iraqi troops replace border guards. Local police forces are raised.
Maliki gives deadline for Mahdi Army to disarm. Sadrists fear being targeted.
The Iraqi government and military continue to shape the battlefield for the confrontation with the Mahdi Army in Maysan province. Starting late last week, Iraqi security forces started the operation by sealing off the entrances and exits to the province, deploying additional forces from Baghdad and Basrah, warning the population, starting patrols in Amarah, and relieving the provincial chief of police.
Since then, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki has ordered all wanted Mahdi Army fighters to turn themselves in and ordered the militia to turn in their weapons. "Those who have heavy and medium weapons, explosives or sniper guns, must hand them over to the security forces over the next four days until June 18 in return for cash," Maliki said.
Two centers have been opened in Amarah to collect weapons, Voices of Iraq reported. "A large amount of weapons and ammunitions were handed over and a number of wanted men gave themselves up in coordination with chieftains and political officials in the province," said General Abdul Karim Khalaf, a spokesman for the Iraqi police.
Military and police officials have said the operation will begin in full force on June 19. Iraqi Armored units, likely from the 9th Iraqi Army Division, have taken up positions on the major roadways leading into Amarah.
Defense Ministry spokesman Brigadier Mohammed Al Askari said the operation will encompass all of Maysan province, and will not focus exclusively on Amarah, the provincial capital.
The Iraqi security forces have moved elements of the 11th Iraqi Army Division to the border to replace the border guards. The move places the Iraqi Army directly on the border with Iran. There is no indication if the border enforcement teams have been relieved of their posts or are undergoing retraining, much as the Iraqi National Police have throughout 2006 to 2008.
The Iraqi security forces are also raising local forces to participate in the operation. Two "regiments" of local fighters have been recruited to work with the Army and police. "Each regiment will include 750 volunteers, who should be exclusively from local residents," Colonel Mahdi Hussein told Voices of Iraq.
Sadrists fear being targeted
The Sadrist political movement, which operates the Mahdi Army, worries the operation is targeting the group exclusively. A statement from a leading spokesman highlights the setbacks the Mahdi Army experienced in Basrah. "We do not want Basrah events to be repeated in Amara," said Sheikh Salih al Obaidi, the lead spokesman for the Sadrist movement. Obaidi instead called for "dialogue."
The Sadrist movement closed down its office in central Amarah and "moved to another 'good location.'" The Sadrists were occupying a building owned by the government.
Last week, Muqtada al Sadr, the leader of the Sadrist movement and the Mahdi Army, ordered the vast majority of the Mahdi Army to disband and withdrew the Sadrist party from the upcoming provincial elections.
Amarah is a strategic hub for Iranian operations in southern Iraq
Maysan province is a strategic link for the Ramazan Corps, the Iranian military command set up by Qods Force to direct operations inside Iraq. Amarah serves as the Qods Force?Ramazan Corps forward command and control center inside Iraq as well as one of the major distribution points for weapons in southern Iraq.
The Iraqi security forces have stepped up operations against the Ramazan Corps and the Mahdi Army in the southern provinces over the past several months. Operation Knights' Assault was launched against the Mahdi Army in Basrah on March 25. After six days of heavy fighting, the Mahdi Army pushed for a cease-fire. The Iraqi security forces also dealt the Mahdi Army a heavy blow in the southern provinces of Najaf, Karbala, Qassadiyah, Maysan, and Wasit.
The Iraqi security forces and the US military also confronted the Mahdi Army in Sadr City in Baghdad. After six weeks of heavy fighting, the Mahdi Army and the Iraqi government signed a cease-fire that allowed the military to enter Sadr City uncontested.
During the month of May, the Iraqi security forces expanded operations throughout Basrah province in Az Zubayr, Al Qurnah, and Abu Al Khasib along the Iranian border. This week, an operation kicked off in Dhi Qhar province, which borders Maysan to the southeast.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/06/iraqi_security_force_15.php (http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/06/iraqi_security_force_15.php)
-
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
-
I guess it's up to the Iraqis to decide for themselves if they want to be ruled by American puppets or Shi'ite extremists or Sunni extremists. Since the Americans (some Americans anyway) seem to believe that their puppets are gaining the upper hand, it will be interesting to see when they put their money where their mouth is and start pulling out their troops. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA, THAT'LL be a cold day in hell!!
-
(some Americans anyway) seem to believe that their puppets are gaining the upper hand, it will be interesting to see when they put their money where their mouth is and start pulling out their troops.
Is that why we will pull out?
Seems like only yesterday we were going to leave thuroughly beaten .
-
Now the big dispute is whether the US will leave bases in Iraq forever, or whether they will leave eventually.
McCain, naturally is for keeping the bases there.
The US Embassy in Baghdad is bigger than the Vatican. Wouldn't that be enough? Iraqis ruled their own nation for something like 6000 years. Why should they need the US now?
More important, why should we have to pay taxes to piss away on what is basically a Big Oil operation?
-
<<Seems like only yesterday we were going to leave thuroughly beaten .>>
I wouldn't have it any other way.
-
I guess it's up to the Iraqis to decide for themselves if they want to be ruled by American puppets or Shi'ite extremists or Sunni extremists. Since the Americans (some Americans anyway) seem to believe that their puppets are gaining the upper hand, it will be interesting to see when they put their money where their mouth is and start pulling out their troops. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA, THAT'LL be a cold day in hell!!
<<Seems like only yesterday we were going to leave thuroughly beaten .>>
I wouldn't have it any other way.
Ok ,I don't understand you at all.
I kinda expect Iraq to deal with us the way the French did , "Thank you - now scram".
-
Just to clarify - - when I spoke of the U.S. getting out because they were winning the war, that was pure sarcasm. They're not even close to winning, and their defeat is inevitable, IMHO. I only hope and pray that it's as dramatic and humiliating as the end of the Vietnam War was for them, not because I've "got it in" for the U.S.A., - - a country which actually has much to admire and respect - - but because it may be a fatal blow to the party of fascism and militarism which supports and promotes such wars.
"I wouldn't have it any other way" meant just that the U.S. will learn a valuable and much-needed lesson if it gets its ass kicked in Iraq the same as it did in Viet Nam, and I would be disappointed if their ultimate departure from Iraq was for any reason other than a humiliating defeat.
-
Just to clarify - - when I spoke of the U.S. getting out because they were winning the war, that was pure sarcasm. They're not even close to winning, and their defeat is inevitable, IMHO. I only hope and pray that it's as dramatic and humiliating as the end of the Vietnam War was for them, not because I've "got it in" for the U.S.A., - - a country which actually has much to admire and respect - - but because it may be a fatal blow to the party of fascism and militarism which supports and promotes such wars.
"I wouldn't have it any other way" meant just that the U.S. will learn a valuable and much-needed lesson if it gets its ass kicked in Iraq the same as it did in Viet Nam, and I would be disappointed if their ultimate departure from Iraq was for any reason other than a humiliating defeat.
The lesson Al Queda would learn from that victory would be what?
-
<<The lesson Al Queda would learn from that victory would be what?>>
Stand up and fight like a man for what's rightfully yours and you will win the ultimate victory regardless of the odds against you.
-
<<The lesson Al Queda would learn from that victory would be what?>>
Stand up and fight like a man for what's rightfully yours and you will win the ultimate victory regardless of the odds against you.
Their ultimate victory includes you ,no less than I ,being defeated.
-
<<Their ultimate victory includes you ,no less than I ,being defeated.>>
I'm afraid we're on opposite sides on this one, plane. I don't believe we have the right to impose our values by force on a sovereign state and in fact that it is criminal to attempt to do so. I don't believe there was any just cause for starting this war and I don't believe in the bullshit excuses given for continuing it. I think the perpetrators of the war are criminals who deserve to be hung for their crimes, so I would hardly consider it a defeat for me personally if they were defeated or even slaughtered. That would, in fact, be the only just result. It would be a triumph for the human race and the human spirit, and I still consider myself to be a human being first and foremost.
-
<<Their ultimate victory includes you ,no less than I ,being defeated.>>
I'm afraid we're on opposite sides on this one, plane. I don't believe we have the right to impose our values by force on a sovereign state and in fact that it is criminal to attempt to do so. I don't believe there was any just cause for starting this war and I don't believe in the bullshit excuses given for continuing it. I think the perpetrators of the war are criminals who deserve to be hung for their crimes, so I would hardly consider it a defeat for me personally if they were defeated or even slaughtered. That would, in fact, be the only just result. It would be a triumph for the human race and the human spirit, and I still consider myself to be a human being first and foremost.
None of that matters to Al Queda, their ambition includes you no less than I.
They do consider themselves as qualified to impose their values by force , and they are only shy about it when we are overhead.
-
<<None of that matters to Al Queda, their ambition includes you no less than I.>>
Nonsense. Their "ambition" is nothing more than self-determination, to be masters in their own house. They did not invade us, we invaded them. Your fantasies of their "ambition" are just thinly disguised projection. The aggression and violence is one-sided, it flows in a steady one-way stream from Britain, the U.S.A. and their proxies, including Israel, against the Arabs and has done so since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
<<They do consider themselves as qualified to impose their values by force , and they are only shy about it when we are overhead.>>
It was the Western Powers that drew their "national" boundaries, created the nations they live in, installed their "royal" families to rule over them and extracted at gunpoint "concessions" which in effect have made the West the co-owners of the national resources of the people of the region. Now you tell me who thinks themselves qualified to impose their values by force on whom?
-
<<None of that matters to Al Queda, their ambition includes you no less than I.>>
Nonsense. Their "ambition" is nothing more than self-determination, to be masters in their own house. They did not invade us, we invaded them. Your fantasies of their "ambition" are just thinly disguised projection. The aggression and violence is one-sided, it flows in a steady one-way stream from Britain, the U.S.A. and their proxies, including Israel, against the Arabs and has done so since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
<<They do consider themselves as qualified to impose their values by force , and they are only shy about it when we are overhead.>>
It was the Western Powers that drew their "national" boundaries, created the nations they live in, installed their "royal" families to rule over them and extracted at gunpoint "concessions" which in effect have made the West the co-owners of the national resources of the people of the region. Now you tell me who thinks themselves qualified to impose their values by force on whom?
They have invaded us.
Three attacks on US soil preceded 9-11 and I am not copunting two embassys .
You are entirely kidding yourself , they are not about "self " determination , they are about Sharia.
If they win in Iraq they are not going to retire at that point.
Their attacks on the US were disapointing to them because we did not invade Afganistan , so the attacks escalated step wise untill we did invade Afganistan , there we found arsenals piled up as though in preparation for a very long fight.
If they "win " now they will have a golden age of recruitment , worse for us than the golden age of recruitment they had during the Clinton Administration.
-
<<They have invaded us.
<<Three attacks on US soil preceded 9-11 >>
There was ample provocation for those "invasions" which are minuscule in scale and duration compared to your interference in, exploitation of and invasion of their lands, both before and after 9-11. You are only playing with words, counting any of that as an "invasion."
<<and I am not copunting two embassys .>>
Good, because there is no sane person on the face of the earth who could consider an attack on an embassy to be an invasion.
<<You are entirely kidding yourself , they are not about "self " determination , they are about Sharia.>>
I don't give a shit how they govern themselves once they've achieved self-determination, it is absolutely none of my God-damn business and if they want to bury each other alive that is 100% THEIR problem.
<<If they win in Iraq they are not going to retire at that point.>>
And you know that because you can read their minds, right? Oh, no, I forgot, some Jewish "expert" on the "Arab mind" has written a book that "proves" they want to invade Brooklyn.
<<Their attacks on the US were disapointing to them because we did not invade Afganistan , so the attacks escalated step wise untill we did invade Afganistan . . . >>
plane, this is just plane [pun intended] nuts - - they are intent on provoking a reaction, sure, but the reaction is geared to the popular overthrow of U.S. puppet dictators, again an illustration of how it is Western interference in THEIR affairs that is sparking this, not THEIR desire to take over the West. The facts are so one-sided in evidence of Western takeovers of Arab lands, and governments, that it is just amazing how you can argue in the face of an overwhelming mass of uncontradicted facts that it is they who are aggressing against the West. This goes way beyond projection, plane, this is really insane.
<<there we found arsenals piled up as though in preparation for a very long fight.>>
WHAT?? Stockpiles of WEAPONS?? Not in AFGHANISTAN, surely?? I am SHOCKED, plane, SHOCKED. Who woulda thunk?
<<If they "win " now they will have a golden age of recruitment , worse for us than the golden age of recruitment they had during the Clinton Administration.>>
plane, this is so crazy that I can't believe I am seriously answering it, but look at it this way: If they recruited every male above the age of ten in Afghanistan AND in Iraq, I don't believe the U.S. would have a thing to worry about. It's notorious that the Republicans get their grip on the American levers of power through shameless fear-mongering, but this thing seems to have reached a new level. I'm sorry, but it is really impossible to take this stuff seriously. Get a grip, plane.
-
So basically you are saying al-Queda has anger issues and simply needs a hug?
-
<<So basically you are saying al-Queda has anger issues and simply needs a hug?>>
No, that's what YOU are saying. I'm saying you have fucked with the wrong people for too long and they are starting to get their shit together now. They've still got a long way to go, but they've started on the path of armed Resistance and they are on the right track. Ultimately you will be forced out of their lives and their homes.
BTW, just so you know, "anger issues" are usually used to describe inappropriate anger, not well-justified outrage. You might as well say of the European Resistance fighters of WWII that they had "anger issues" and "just needed a hug."
-
You might as well say of the European Resistance fighters of WWII that they had "anger issues" and "just needed a hug."
To the Germans that might have been true. Perception is everything.
-
<<You are entirely kidding yourself , they are not about "self " determination , they are about Sharia.>>
I don't give a shit how they govern themselves once they've achieved self-determination,........
You have missed the entire point.
Their not going to have any self determination , they do not want andy self determination at all , they want Sharia globally and there is no reason to stop while there is a single person who is not under it.
-
<<They have invaded us.
<<Three attacks on US soil preceded 9-11 >>
There was ample provocation for those "invasions" which are minuscule in scale and duration compared to your interference in, exploitation of and invasion of their lands, both before and after 9-11. You are only playing with words, counting any of that as an "invasion."
Yes one of the invasions was simply one guy walking into the parking lot of the CIA and shooting people as they sat in their cars , you gotta call that miniscule.
They had a strong trend to escalate tho.
I beleive that if we had treated 9-11 as if it were a criminal incident , they would have tried another attack , bigger,hopeing to get the invasion of Afganistan that they WANTED.
-
"...they are intent on provoking a reaction, sure, but the reaction is geared to the popular overthrow of U.S. puppet dictators, again an illustration of how it is Western interference in THEIR affairs that is sparking this, not THEIR desire to take over the West. ..."
"They " have never said that they have this limitation on their ambition.
Why do they attack the USA at all , if their real aim is more local?
The Shah of Iran was deposed without burning down downtown New York , so why does such a thing help them take over Saudi Arabia?
-
WHAT?? Stockpiles of WEAPONS?? Not in AFGHANISTAN, surely?? I am SHOCKED, plane, SHOCKED. Who woulda thunk?
Osama Bin Laden is who would have thunk that he could win a quagmire sort of war , that is who.
He wanted it and he was gonna do whatever it took to get it to happen.
OBL was a very wealthy guy , what does a very welthy guy buy a nation load of weapons for?
-
plane, this is so crazy that I can't believe I am seriously answering it, but look at it this way: If they recruited every male above the age of ten in Afghanistan AND in Iraq, I don't believe the U.S. would have a thing to worry about.
Totally right , we are going to win.
The only question is how long will it take?
If we destroy Al Quieda , we are done , nothing less can be called finished.
If we do the job mostly and retire from the feild we will be forced to return in a few years when the Al Queda has healed up .
If this becomes cyclical , how many iterations of the cycle will we go thru before we get serious ?
Imagine the Allies decideing that driveing Facism form their own territorys was enough to do , and halting their advance at Germanys frounteirs. That would have saved many, many lives , right?
-
<<So basically you are saying al-Queda has anger issues and simply needs a hug?>>
No, that's what YOU are saying. I'm saying you have fucked with the wrong people for too long and they are starting to get their shit together now. They've still got a long way to go, but they've started on the path of armed Resistance and they are on the right track. Ultimately you will be forced out of their lives and their homes.
BTW, just so you know, "anger issues" are usually used to describe inappropriate anger, not well-justified outrage. You might as well say of the European Resistance fighters of WWII that they had "anger issues" and "just needed a hug."
No .
If they recruited every male above the age of ten in Afghanistan AND in Iraq, I don't believe the U.S. would have a thing to worry about.
They cannot use force to acheive anything against the US.
-
Good, because there is no sane person on the face of the earth who could consider an attack on an embassy to be an invasion.
An embassy is considered sovereign territory of the sponsoring nation. As such, an attack on an embassy is an invasion.
-
<<An embassy is considered sovereign territory of the sponsoring nation. As such, an attack on an embassy is an invasion.>>
This is EXACTLY what I mean by right-wing nitpicking and quibbling. Technically, in some world of abstract legality, you would be correct. In real life, the West has had boots on the ground in so many Arab and Muslim countries, always up to no damned good, that you would have to be a lunatic to try to draw any comparison between the two, and even if you did, you'd have to keep in mind that the Embassy attacks (or "invasions of U.S. soil" as you prefer to call them) happened IN RESPONSE TO years of provocation.
-
<<To the Germans that [that the European Resistance fighters had "anger management" issues] might have been true. Perception is everything. >>
As most of us have already noticed, the Germans perceived a lot of things differently than the rest of the world. "Perceptual" difficulties that profound can only be resolved by superior firepower. When enough of the bastards were converted into charred bratwurst makins, that "perception" was invalidated. Hopefully for good. Even the Germans seem to have given up on it.
From my own observations, if there is any people on the face of the earth more in need of "anger management" lessons than the U.S.A., I have not seen any sign of them. Although I am sure the Americans can justify every single one of their unprovoked aggressions with the most exquisitely refined reasoning. Just ask Ami.
-
<<You have missed the entire point.
<<Their not going to have any self determination , they do not want andy self determination at all , they want Sharia globally and there is no reason to stop while there is a single person who is not under it.>>
I think, (1) that you just don't understand self-determination, because you seem to be under the impression that it's inconsistent with Sharia and (2) you are just repeating the Zionist-inspired propaganda line that they all want the same thing and that thing is global Sharia. The Zionists are in the business of manufacturing "the typical Arab terrorist" and you are one of their best customers.
I believe there are some Muslims who wish to impose global Sharia and if necessary by force. Some of them are armed and violent, most are probably not. Of those that are armed and violent, they partake in armed Resistance movements some of which have global Sharia as their goal, others of which are more focused on specific areas of grievance - - Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, etc. - - and are not pursuing a path to global Sharia, even though the satisfaction of their immediate goal might be seen as bringing them one step closer to global Sharia.
There are plenty of Christians who won't stop what they're doing till the whole world is brought to an acceptance of Jesus Christ as personal saviour, some of them in quite high places in the U.S. political and military fields, so I don't see anything unique or threatening in their Muslim counterparts. One side kills with suicide bombs and one with JDAMs, but apart from the disparity in technology (which may be narrowing) I don't see any fundamental differences.
What is truly bizarre is this one-size-fits-all caricature you seem to have constructed (or which was constructed for you) to represent the other side in what is essentially a struggle for the control of other people's (with browner skins) lands and resources. Weird beyond belief, actually.
-
<<I beleive that if we had treated 9-11 as if it were a criminal incident , they would have tried another attack , bigger,hopeing to get the invasion of Afganistan that they WANTED.>>
My point exactly, or almost exactly, because I don't think they gave a shit which particular Muslim country the U.S. would attack. It didn't HAVE to be Afghanistan, although Afghanistan is very attractive for a variety of reasons, one being the recent history of the Russian invasion.
So at least you'll admit that by attacking Afghanistan (and Iraq) the U.S. and Britain are doing exactly what al Qaeda wanted them (correctly or not) to do?
-
<<"They " have never said that they have this limitation on their ambition.>>
I've read numerous accounts of Resistance fighters who took up the gun in response to a specific grievance, such as Palestine, Chechnya, the invasion of Iraq, the establishment of U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, etc. Without any logical justification, you claim a wider goal for each of them. Pure projection (THEY want world domination, when in fact that goal is way more consistent with U.S. actions than with anything most of the Resistance fighters ever said - - but the Israel Lobby keeps a huge amount of "scholars" on its gravy train, combing through every speech of every lunatic, looking for the magic words "global jihad" or "global Sharia" so that the U.S. military-industrial complex and its media claque can happily serve up the results of all this research to "prove" that "They're out to get us" when every objective fact points to relentless exploitation, subversion, interference and ultimately invasion BY THE WEST of Muslim lands, going on for decades, ever since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.)
<<Why do they attack the USA at all , if their real aim is more local?>>
Why bomb Cambodia if the real aim is Viet Nam? Why bomb Germany when you want to liberate Occupied Europe? Why shoot for the head of the dragon when it's his claws that are going to rip you to shreds?
<<The Shah of Iran was deposed without burning down downtown New York , so why does such a thing help them take over Saudi Arabia?>>
Later day, better tactics. They're starting to get their shit together. In the Vietnam years, the idea was "Bring the War Home!" meaning that as long as war meant that Vietnamese children would be roasted to death in napalm while New Yorkers sipped lattes on West 57th Street, the American people would tolerate the war forever. Once things started to blow up in America, the people would start asking questions about the war that they should have started asking years before.
Now the war on the Muslims and the theft of their resources is starting to cost America big-time. I'm not talking about the 4,000 dead hillbillies nobody but their families will ever miss - - I'm talking three trillion bucks and counting plus the cost of "Homeland Security" and the loss of American prestige around the world. IMHO, the al Qaeda tactic has already succeeded brilliantly by raising the cost of American aggression exponentially. Which was the theory behind "Bring the War Home!"
-
Al Qaeda has not invaded the US.
It has attacked the US.
How can one tell the difference?
This is relatively easy.
Identify all territories currently held by Al Qaeda (0)
Add all territories held temporarily bu Al Qaeda: (0)
Add the two above: (0)
Number of invasions of US by Al Qaeda: (0)
Conclusion: Al Qaeda has not, ever invaded the US.
-
plane sez: <<Osama Bin Laden is who would have thunk that he could win a quagmire sort of war , that is who.
<<He wanted it and he was gonna do whatever it took to get it to happen.
<<OBL was a very wealthy guy , what does a very welthy guy buy a nation load of weapons for?>>
=========================================================================
I think you totally missed my point. Those stockpiles of weapons are nothing out of the ordinary for Afghanistan. That's how they decide their political differences. It's like finding a warehouse full of McCain for President posters in the U.S. You wanted to make that look like some kind of sinister plot by Muslim fanatics to take over the world. And I'll eat my hat if every weapons cache found in Afghanistan belongs to OBL. (Safe bet, I don't have a hat.)
-
<<Totally right , we are going to win.
<<The only question is how long will it take?>>
Well, not the ONLY question. The other one is, How low does the dollar have to fall before one of the morons-in-charge decides that "winning" is beyond your financial reach?
<<If we destroy Al Quieda , we are done , nothing less can be called finished.>>
The biggest fucking joke to date. As if no other group will spring up to replace them.
<<If we do the job mostly and retire from the feild we will be forced to return in a few years when the Al Queda has healed up .>>
TRANSLATION: This fight that we started will go on forever till somebody decides to pull the plug on it.
<<If this becomes cyclical , how many iterations of the cycle will we go thru before we get serious ?>>
Getting serious about what? About pursuing the impossible or about admitting a huge mistake, taking your losses and finally bugging out like you always do?
<<Imagine the Allies decideing that driveing Facism form their own territorys was enough to do , and halting their advance at Germanys frounteirs. That would have saved many, many lives , right?>>
Conveniently forgetting that the Germans were totally in the wrong and most of them were prepared to acknowledge that fact and give up an aggressive and hateful ideology and admit their crimes and their errors. Now considering that the Arab Resistance is mostly in the right, fighting off foreign invasions and totally unprovoked aggression and desiring to remain masters in their own house, having committed no crimes that would disentitle them to that right, they will keep on fighting as long as they can draw breath.
Ask yourself: How come the Germans and Japs gave up and accepted the occupation? How come the Afghans and the Iraqis don't?
Your WWII comparisons are just loony and the exact opposite of reality-based. You have got to be able to distinguish between the two situations. There is zero similarity. In WWII, we were the good guys. Today you are the bad guys. NOBODY rolls over for the bad guys, no matter how powerful they are. Just as the European Resistance kept on fighting the Nazis against impossible odds, the same way the Islamic Resistance will go on fighting the Americans. That is the glory and the heroism of the human spirit - - not to give in, to continue the fight. That is why I KNOW that you will be defeated in the long run. Evil never wins.
-
It's my opinon that the "War on Terror" will never end, its focus may shift from international to domestic, but I don't think that you're ever going to see a Mission Accomplished banner for this war. The war won't end for the same reason that you'll never see an end to the "War on Drugs": it has become a cash cow for the government, and a very powerful tool for securing convictions. Yes, right now those convictions are for terrorists, but does anyone really believe that the law won't be abused in the future? The government has a tool that lets it extend its will over its populace, and extort money in the bargain.
Do you really think that they'll ever let that go (and I think that this is an equal application to both parties)?
-
Terrorism is a tool. The CIA and the OSS before it have schooled terrorists.
The OSS schooled terrorists in the French Maquis to defeat the Nazis, and some of them were involved in organized crime in Marsailles and Corsica and that evolved into the French Connection.
Something similar happened in Italy. The US Mafia was largely separate from its Italian roots until after WWII.
The Muslim Brotherhood was financed and encouraged by a CIA guy named Copeland to dethrone Nasser. Eventually it managed to assassinate Sadat. Israel clandestinely encouraged Hamas to provide an opposition for the PLO and Al Fatah.
Al Qaeda was formed when the US got Saudi help and provided arms to the Afghans to fight the Soviets.
The pattern is that the US brings organizational skills and arms to incompetent dissidents, who then become competent, armed and dangerous.
Much of this worked for the US for a period, but then stupidity and incompetence allowed it to backfire on us.
-
It's my opinon that the "War on Terror" will never end, its focus may shift from international to domestic, but I don't think that you're ever going to see a Mission Accomplished banner for this war. The war won't end for the same reason that you'll never see an end to the "War on Drugs": it has become a cash cow for the government, and a very powerful tool for securing convictions. Yes, right now those convictions are for terrorists, but does anyone really believe that the law won't be abused in the future? The government has a tool that lets it extend its will over its populace, and extort money in the bargain.
Do you really think that they'll ever let that go (and I think that this is an equal application to both parties)?
There was a war on Piracy , it took a long time.
Pirates were good hiders on a large ocean.
Pirates had homes and sponsors they could go to , some retired as gentry.
But Pirates have been a joke for an hundred years why is quashing Pirates so easy and terrorists so tough?
I would bet that if you were to ask Queen Elizabeth how Piracy would be abolished she could not have told you , no idea.
-
I would bet that if you were to ask Queen Elizabeth how Piracy would be abolished she could not have told you , no idea.
=================================
Queen Elizabeth was pro-pirate, and financed a whole bunch of them: Morgan, Raleigh, and others. The Brits had no gold, and for a rather long period English money consisted mostly of foreign coins, usually Spanish coins, with QE's face stamped over the Spanish King's visage. The English built ships and sent their sailors off to pillage and plunder the Spanish. French and others in return for a percentage of the take. If a pirate got too greedy, or the Queen signed a trweaty, she would betray her privateer and have him captured and hung. The various European royalty were less honorable as a rule than the pirates they hired.
Just as the English privateers, Dutch freibuiters, French boucaniers often shed their loyalties and atacked the faithless monarchs they once sailed for, the OSS and the CIA started the whole terrorism thing during and after WWII, and it got out of hand and resulted in blowback. Queen Elizabeth and her court of plunderers and thieves were remarkably like the asshole Dulles Brothers and the unspeakable William Casey, who financed coups and terrorist groups galore.
It is unlikely that there would have been any 9-11 had it not been for the downright evil machinations of men like the Dulleses, Casey, and their numerous blackops clowns and flunkies.
-
<<It is unlikely that there would have been any 9-11 had it not been for the downright evil machinations of men like the Dulleses, Casey, and their numerous blackops clowns and flunkies.>>
Or as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright loved to say, "The chickens came home to roost." And some Americans just can't stand to hear the truth. But it sure looks like more and more of them are coming to grips with it.
-
Al Qaeda has not invaded the US.
It has attacked the US.
How can one tell the difference?
This is relatively easy.
Identify all territories currently held by Al Qaeda (0)
Add all territories held temporarily bu Al Qaeda: (0)
Add the two above: (0)
Number of invasions of US by Al Qaeda: (0)
Conclusion: Al Qaeda has not, ever invaded the US.
Number of invasions of US by Al Qaeda: (4)
Look at all of those Zeros we agree on , no territory held at all.
This is a good definition of looseing.