U.S. Government KNOWINGLY let Mutallab board Detroit flight

[Michael Tee]

<<It is the President that is commander in cheif , the joint cheifs are his appointees.>>

True enough, but since neither Clinton nor Bush was a military man, I'm sure that the styles of campaign they adopted were in fact what the Joint Chiefs recommended.

<<The Al Queda version of a smart bomb is Mohammed Atta  . . . >>

Not at all, that "smart bomb" cost them the lives of nineteen of their most courageous and successful operatives.


<<You may be nostalgic for the Bush style in which an American or two actually gets shot every day . . . >>


<<When was this gilded age [when it was envisaged that countries would not go to war against one another without actual provocation.]?>>

As I said, it was the early days of the UN, 1944, 45, 46.

[Plane]

<<It is the President that is commander in cheif , the joint cheifs are his appointees.>>

True enough, but since neither Clinton nor Bush was a military man, I'm sure that the styles of campaign they adopted were in fact what the Joint Chiefs recommended.

<<The Al Queda version of a smart bomb is Mohammed Atta  . . . >>

Not at all, that "smart bomb" cost them the lives of nineteen of their most courageous and successful operatives.

So they are not really very smart ? What is your point?

<<You may be nostalgic for the Bush style in which an American or two actually gets shot every day . . . >>


<<When was this gilded age [when it was envisaged that countries would not go to war against one another without actual provocation.]?>>

As I said, it was the early days of the UN, 1944, 45, 46.

The one time that the UN actually went to war to fight Communism was when ?

 47?

Acttual provacation by the Communists in North Korea was quite clear ,and UN action was quite effective , but I did not know you would be nostalgic for that time.

[Michael Tee]

<<If I were you I would be deeply embarrassed to admit that I had such a limited view of the world as you admit to here. >>

I'd be embarrassed just to have to resort to an argument like that.  But I can't be embarrassed by my own ignorance.  In simple terms, I know what I know and I don't know what I don't know.  I sure as bitchin hell don't WANT to be so fuckin iggerant and I'm always ready to learn more.  Although I'm not so sure that you're the one who can teach me.

<<It's embarrassing enough just to read it.>>

Jeeze, enough with the embarrassment, BSB.  It certainly isn't your fault.  Hold your head high and proceed as if you had just been reading the wisdom of Socrates.  I apologize for my shortcomings.  It's embarrassing to me that you were embarrassed.  OK?

<<It's almost criminal in its ignorance.>>

Criminal?  Did you say criminal?  Why not report it to the FBI?  Who knows, it could be more criminal than you think.  It might endanger your great nation.

<<Saddam Hussein lived in constant fear of being killed, overthrown, deposed, use what ever term you chose, by his own people. >>

Jeeziz Christ.  THAT'S a revelation.  And in the Middle East, too.  Who woulda ever thunk?

<<He ruled with an iron fist because Iraq was constantly on the verge of chaos and civil war. >>

NO!  An Arab ruling with an iron fist?  In IRAQ??  I am so disillusioned, I think I am going to cry.  Next thing you are going to tell me is that Amnesty International was constantly on his back for torturing and murdering his subjects.  I'm giving up on those bastards.  Time and time again, they have done nothing but let me down.

<<You can't oppress the majority for decades the way Saddam Hussein did and not have an irruption at some point. >>

You don't know what the hell you're talking about.  Saddam did not "oppress the majority," any more than any Middle Eastern dictatorship does.  Mubarak and his clique in Egypt, Assad and his Alawite government in Syria, Hussein and his Hashemite dynasty in Jordan, the Saudi dynasty in Saudi Arabia, the Shah and his clique in Iran.  He was a typical Middle East despot, only with a very benevolent socialist program of social benefits, including equality for women.

<<Of course Iraq was ready to irrupt when we went in and created a power vacuum.>>

A total fantasy and of course it didn't "erupt" until the bombing of the Askariya shrine in Samarra in 2006, a small detail which I guess you overlooked.

<< And of course an irruption is exactly what happened. >>

Yeah.  Three years after the invasion.

<<And of course Al Qaeda's goal was to take advantage of it. Al Qaeda doesn't operate anywhere that doesn't meet its prescription for survival. Chaos and civil war. >>

You really don't know WTF you are talking about, do you?  Al Qaeda operates to expel infidels who invade Muslim lands and kill the Muslim inhabitants.  The Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Iraq.  Don't make up bullshit as if everyone in this forum is as dumb as you are.

<<You're the most dishonest poster I've ever run across on the net, bin Snowblower. >>

Anyone who can contradict your bullshit with facts is "dishonest," I guess.  Thanks for the compliment.

<<I repeat, you're a fool, and a joke. >>

What are you, some kind of fucking moron?  You dump a lot of high-school crap on this group, plus a ton of misinformation and you are talking about "fools" and "jokes?"  The fool is you, schmuck.  The joke is you.  Grow a fucking brain.  And don't try to fool people who have forgotten more than you'll ever know.

<<Get an education and stop wasting our time.>>

Yeah.  right.  Thanks for the tip, pea-brain.

[BSB]

Just for starters the insurgency started within a few weeks of the fall of Baghdad. The rest is so dumb no one should bother. 

[Michael Tee]

Just for starters, no one was talking about the insurgency, we were discussing the civil war.  The rest of the stuff is so embarrassingly revealing of your total fucking ignorance that I can perfectly understand your reluctance to revisit it.

[BSB]

Iraq has been in a state of civil war since the Brits created it. Its never been in any other state. It's still in a state of civil war, and it will be 15 years from. Too much water has gone under the bridge for it to stop within this generation. All this would have been true American invasion or not. Not to realize that is to disagree with every historian on Iraq you can find. 

Now, Al Qaeda's purpose?

The reason it was a bad move to invade Iraq is because those who were thinking knew it would alienate the civilian population, and create an opposition to foreign intervention. And, not only in Iraq, but elsewhere. The fight against Al Qaeda was going to be hard enough without adding additional opposition within the Muslim world because of invading another Islamic country besides Afghanistan. I'm taking about the general Muslim community here.

Now Al Qaeda is a different animal. Al Qaeda's purpose is to bring down the West, overthrow Arab regimes, and restore an Islamic caliphate. bin Laden lives in the 13th century, along with many of the Islamic fundies. We are the palace guards that bin Laden needs to get rid of in order to enter the palace.

Pull your head out of your ass.

[Michael Tee]

<<Iraq has been in a state of civil war since the Brits created it.>>

That is simply not true.  It was a monarchy from the early or mid thirties and had a tribal rebellion on its hands, which the British crushed, then the monarchy functioned till after the war, when it was overthrown by an officer clique which came to be led, eventually, by Saddam Hussein.

 <<Its never been in any other state. >>

You're just talking out of your ass.

<<It's still in a state of civil war, and it will be 15 years from. Too much water has gone under the bridge for it to stop within this generation. >>

Yeah and you can thank one man for that:  George W. Bush.

<<All this would have been true American invasion or not.>>

Wrong.

<<Not to realize that is to disagree with every historian on Iraq you can find.>>

Name one.

<<Now, Al Qaeda's purpose?

<<The reason it was a bad move to invade Iraq is because those who were thinking knew it would alienate the civilian population, and create an opposition to foreign intervention. And, not only in Iraq, but elsewhere. The fight against Al Qaeda was going to be hard enough without adding additional opposition within the Muslim world because of invading another Islamic country besides Afghanistan. I'm taking about the general Muslim community here.

Now Al Qaeda is a different animal. Al Qaeda's purpose is to bring down the West, overthrow Arab regimes, and restore an Islamic caliphate. bin Laden lives in the 13th century, along with many of the Islamic fundies. We are the palace guards that bin Laden needs to get rid of in order to enter the palace.>>

What complete bullshit.  al Qaeda's purpose is to get infidels out of Muslim land - - whether in Saudi Arabia, where the movement began as a reaction to U.S. bases, in Afghanistan (removal of Russians, then Americans) or Iraq (removal of Americans.)

<<Pull your head out of your ass. >>

THAT'S  ironic.

[BSB]

Name one? Charles Tripp. Iraq has been a mess for close to a century. It was held in check by a line of authoritarian rulers. Only a fool would claim otherwise. Once the iron fist was removed, it fell apart. Not unlike so many of your lovely nations once controlled by the Soviet Union.

And, only a fool would claim that Al Qaeda's purpose is anything other then the overthrow of what they see as western controlled regimes in the area and the return of Islamic rule, as defined by bin Laden as his followers. As I said, they attacked us because we protect the regimes they want to overthrow. Your pipe dream that Al Qaeda is some sort of Islamic French Resistance is just that, a pipe dream.

[Michael Tee]

<<Name one? Charles Tripp. Iraq has been a mess for close to a century. It was held in check by a line of authoritarian rulers.>>


You seem to have the attention span of a squirrel - - the issue was whether or not Iraq was in a constant state of civil war, as you so ignorantly claimed.  I'm not sure what "being a mess" means, although I suppose it could include civil war.  Show me where Tripp (whoever the fuck he is) has stated that Iraq was in a constant state of civil war, even under the Ba'ath Party.  That'll be a neat trick, unless Tripp is as big a moron as you.

<< Only a fool would claim otherwise. >>

Well, I'm that fool.  Put up or shut up.

<<Once the iron fist was removed, it fell apart. >>

Yeah, after about three years, when the Sunnis decided to ignite a civil war by blowing up shrines and pilgrims.  According to your crackpot theory the civil war would have erupted spontaneously as soon as the lid was taken off the pressure cooker, not three years later due to deliberate provocations.

<<Not unlike so many of your lovely nations once controlled by the Soviet Union.>>

Uhh, I wouldn't refer to the post-communist period of Eastern Europe if I were you, unless it's your intention to demonstrate conclusively the benefits of communism and the evils of capitalism.

<<And, only a fool would claim that Al Qaeda's purpose is anything other then the overthrow of what they see as western controlled regimes in the area and the return of Islamic rule, as defined by bin Laden as his followers. >>

The short-term goal is the removal of infidels from specific Muslim lands --  Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iraq.  Palestine.  And then probably some kind of Sharia law.

<<As I said, they attacked us because we protect the regimes they want to overthrow. >>

Better re-read your recent history.  They wanted to overthrow the Saudi regime BECAUSE it had permitted infidel troops onto the sacred Muslim soil of Arabia.  THAT was their primary motivation.

<<Your pipe dream that Al Qaeda is some sort of Islamic French Resistance is just that, a pipe dream.>>

Yeah, a French Resistance with a manual on how to remove people's eyeballs.  You really are some special kind of moron.  They're French Resistance like the U.S. torturers of Abu Ghraib are French Resistance.

[Amianthus]

Tripp (whoever the fuck he is)

Professor Charles R. H. Tripp, Ph.D., is an academic and author specializing in the politics and history of the Near and Middle East.

Tripp's main areas of research include the study of state and society in the Middle East, especially Iraq, and Islamic political thought.

As of 2008[update], he lectures on government and politics of the Middle East for both undergraduates and postgraduates at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), a college of the University of London.

Professor Tripp is a world class specialist on Iraq and has contributed as regional expert to media broadcasters including the BBC and NPR, as well as to print media such as Foreign Affairs, The Guardian and the New Statesman. In the run up to the war against Iraq, Professor Tripp was part of a small team that visited 10 Downing Street in order to advise the prime minister, Tony Blair, on the consequences of going to war.

On 19 November 2008, Tripp gave his inaugural lecture as Professor of Politics at SOAS entitled 'The Riotous Politics of the Middle East', in which he was presented by Oxford International Relations professor Avi Shlaim.
Charles R. H. Tripp

[BSB]

Yeah, Iraq just happened to erupt in civil war because we were there. Nothing to do with their history. Just like the irruptions in eastern Europe had nothing to do with having been previously held in check by the Soviet Union.


"Muslims who seek to shape the world according to their religious values often confront an obdurate reality"

Charles Tripp

Lots of luck Al Qaeda.

[BSB]

"Yeah, a French Resistance........................"


Ha, you're the one who compared them to the French resistance.

[Michael Tee]

<<Ha, you're the one who compared them to the French resistance. >>

Obviously, I was comparing their structural roles in a three-sided conflict between occupiers, collaborators and national resistance fighters, not their moral qualities.

And BTW, whoever Tripp is, (thanks, Ami!) I'm still waiting for his quote that Iraq was in a constant state of civil war under Ba'ath Party rule.  I can see it'll be a long wait.

[BSB]

Ah huh, backing off on Al Qaeda as the heroic French Resistance protecting Iraq from America huh.

I see you also have now admitted that Al Qaeda wanted to overthrow at least one regime. Maybe you'll wake up to bin Ladens purpose after all. Maybe you'll realize he wants all of them to capitulate to his dream and return to a centuries-old Islamic caliphate.

So, from the very get go everyone, and I mean everyone, was afraid Iraq would descend into civil war after our invasion because what? They didn't have a history of being on the constant verge of one? If we invaded Norway would everyone be concerned about them descending into civil war, or would the concern be about a unified effort to remove us? Gee, ya think the latter might be more applicable?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Maybe you'll realize he wants all of them to capitulate to his dream and return to a centuries-old Islamic caliphate.
=====================================================================
It is not really Bin Laden's pipe dreams that matter. The question is whether the cause is seen as worthy and feasible enough for people to deliberately kill themselves to make it happen. Miss America wants world peace, too, but she is unlikly to become a suicide bomber to attain it.

If the US and the UK were to cease interfering in Arab Muslim nations, that would defuse Al Qaeda more than anything else. The reestablishment of the Caliphate to Bin laden is akin to the Return of Jesus and His Glorious Reign over All to fundamentalists. Something to say they are hankering for, but that is not really taken seriously.