Last night, I discovered this jaw-dropping video of Micheal Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit.
As a Muslim, I found it upsetting (and I’m sure Israelis will too for their own reasons). Frankly, I’m actually very dumbfounded that someone who used to be in the CIA has these kind of ludicrous opinions.
Apparently, Michael thinks Bin Laden is not a terrorist but a resistance fighter. Yes, an insurgent and a freaking “resistance fighter”. Oh and guess what his solution is in a post 9/11 world - killing more of the enemy without a great deal of concern for civilian casualties!
Yes, dear Michael, that’s exactly the solution. No need for putting any effort whatsoever in winning hearts and minds. Screw the civilians too!
The foreign policy of the United States has a lot to answer for in the Middle East but it’s not really the reason for why Bin Laden is waging his war against America and the West. It has everything to do with al-Qaeda’s ideology and goal of establishing (through means of violence) a global Caliphate which enforces their vision of “holy laws”.
If today America withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan, dismantled its military bases in the Gulf, stopped supporting dictatorships like Mubarak’s and the House of Al Saud, stopped backing up Israel, and Palestine finally got fairly established, many, many Muslims and Arabs will be very happy. They won’t march in streets and call for America’s death anymore. However, for the Bin Laden types, it will never be enough.
Ali Eteraz too, shares a similar view in the second block-quote of his post “The Fanatics, Not Foreign Policy” which I encourage you to read.
Knock, knock Micheal Scheuer. It’s time to wake up.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 40 comments… read them below or add one }
“They won’t march in streets and call for America’s death anymore.”
No, they will simply murder each other and commit a genocide or two once they notice that the Americans won’t stop them.
You are seeing a very rosy picture there. The reality is that those Arab countries outside American influence were A LOT worse than those connected with the US in some way.
“Palestine” got established in 1948, or it would have been had Jordan and Egypt not invaded. But did that make people stop screaming “death to the Jews”?
Of course, Bin Laden is more extreme than most; but I’m afraid feeding the Saudis to the masses won’t be enough to rid them of their nationalism, stupidity, anti-Semitism, and hatred for minorities.
Yes, we have to win the hearts and minds; but where that worked in the past, in Germany and Japan, it was done AFTER the two were crushed completely.
And, incidentally, it seems that the Iraqis hate the Americans less than most Arabs. It seems like “crush and win” is better than “win and you don’t have to crush”, which to my recollection never worked anywhere.
Another few things that would happen if American withdrew:
1. Israel would defend itself anyway, like it did before America became involved in the middle east.
2. Bahrain would be overrun by Iran.
3. Iraq would be overrun by Iran.
4. Kuwait would pay off the Iranians and become a tourist attraction for Iranian dictators who want to enjoy life outside Iranian law.
5. Egypt would be overthrown by the MB.
6. Lebanon would be overrun by Syria and Iran, despite Druze, Israeli, Sunni, and Christian attempts to defend the country.
7. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda would suddenly become unpopular as the Mulsim Brotherhood takes over country after country because they have a better infrastructure than Al-Qaeda and a better reputation.
8. Jordan would fall to Syria. Israel won’t be able to help this time.
9. Israel will finish the border fence, withdraw all settlers, and shoot at everything in sight at the border.
10. The Kurds will fight it out with Iranians and Syria-led Baathists.
11. The Sudanese government will break the peace treaty and attack the south and finish off the Darfurians in the west.
12. Saudi Arabia will fall first to Al-Qaeda and then to Iran.
13. Peace-activists in the west will protest solely Israel’s attempts to survive this new middle east.
The Arab governments know that. And that’s why they keep the Americans around.
I am usually sympathetic to the S-D POV, but this time, I think it is you who has lost your bearings Sudan-man.
Schueuer’s views are very important counter-points and sparks of sanity in the Bush led GWOT.
Bush Admin people say Bin Laden’s people attack the US because they hate our freedoms. We have all known that is a boatload of shit for years. But the rhetoric and justifications of the American side of the war is based on that premise.
Michael Scheuer says nay to that. Bin Laden is fighting a war of resistance to American hegemony in the middle east, and of course he is completely correct.
What’s more, the link you posted shows that Scheuer is willing to stand ground against neocon hacks like Bill Maher and say that Israel is not worth one American $ or life.
On this, again, I completely agree.
I will attempt to check what exactly was said and meant by indifference to civilian casualties. That does not sound like a policy anyone but Israel would take.
Rethink Scheuer. You might find an ally in the Global War on American Insanity and Paranoia.
Scheuer, on civilian casualties, probably just means that we should be ruthless when we have to attack. The problem, strategically, with terrorism is the human shield factor.
You encourage terrorist to attack and hide behind civilians. To be effective, counter-terrorism has to be willing and demonstrate willingness to shed civilian blood in these cases.
That is a cold hard fact.
‘many, many Muslims and Arabs will be very happy’ I can’t tell you how happy many, many, many Americans would be as well. I would be more than happy if my tax dollars were spent in my own country and if our kids only died to protect US!
“I would be more than happy if my tax dollars were spent in my own country and if our kids only died to protect US!”
The same argument has been made against US involvement in World War 2. The problem is, it comes back to haunt you.
If the US’ enemies go unchecked, the US will have bigger enemies a few years later.
Bin Laden and his ilk will NOT leave the US alone just because they do not have to feat the US any more.
“Bush Admin people say Bin Laden’s people attack the US because they hate our freedoms. We have all known that is a boatload of shit for years.”
Actually, it is true.
They do hate our freedoms because they lose people to those freedoms.
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/09/Whoisourenemy.shtml
‘The problem is, it comes back to haunt you’
It comes back to haunt us no matter what we do. How do we know if we never try it? All I know is that I wouldn’t offer my kids lives for any of them.
‘Bin Laden and his ilk will NOT leave the US alone just because they do not have to feat the US any more.’
I know, it’s all about the honor of slapping the Superpower. That’s why I’m against spending money on little weapons. Do like WW2 and get it over with.
Andrew
You appear to be a neocon and I am afraid neocons, zionists and other right-wing agents who seeks to prod the US into matters beyond the interest and benefit of its own self-interests are extremely resistant to the facts.
Exhibit A: All neocons have drunk the koolaid that Islamic Extremists hate our freedoms and this is a Clash of Civilizations which cannot be resolved until one side is destroyed or atleast completely crushed and subjugated. You appear to support the “They hate our freedom fries” narrative.
Exhibit B: Indifference to past and present facts. Comparing Bin Laden to Nazis or the GWOT to WWII is like comparing Vladimir Lenin to Che Guevara.
Different eras, different methods, different politics, different power base and authority, etc.
In other words, it don’t effin cut it, jack! Your thinking is sloppy, imprecise, baseless.
We armed and trained the Taliban. Like all temp dictators we have propped up, they have exceeded their usefulness and cost more money than they make.
Bin Laden stated precisely the reasons why he attacked the US. Like all cheap propagandists, the only person who NEVER gets quoted is the boogeyman in question.
They hate our freedoms?
Bush hates our freedoms.
He has been far more effective in stifling them.
Someone has got to put these neocon porkers to rest.
ST
“If today America withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan, dismantled its military bases in the Gulf, stopped supporting dictatorships like Mubarak’s and the House of Al Saud, stopped backing up Israel, and Palestine finally got fairly established, many, many Muslims and Arabs will be very happy.”
I understand your point…which is kind of sad. Because I don’t think it would make many Muslims celebrate if:
1. The killing ended in Darfur
2. Palestinians gave land for peace
3. There was freedom and decomcracy in places like Iran, Iraq, Libya, Egypt etc.
4. If Syria stopped housing terrorists and oppressing her people
5. If the Lebanese stopped slaughtering each other
6. If there were universal women’s rights and women’s sufferage and should I go on?
7. If there was true freedom of speech and other forms of expression.
8. If the Northern Nigerians treated the Southerners more decently
9. If Egypt paid compensation to Nubian refugees from the Ashawn dam project
In psychology…we talk about internal vs external locus of control…Some folks see problems and say…there is something very wrong with the world…others tend to say…there are problems…I better take a good look at my failings.
Need I say more?
Buzz Kill-
“will attempt to check what exactly was said and meant by indifference to civilian casualties. That does not sound like a policy anyone but Israel would take.”
You know…when folks make those kinds of comments…they lose all crediability…
Next step is Buzz, if he sticks around…will make even more outrageous comments…and then start will name-calling when he gets frustrated..
Buzz…what do you call Katushyas and Kassams aimed randomly but directly into civilian neighborhoods or…let’s say…bombings and burning of villages in Darfur? Just for starters?
what do you call Katushyas and Kassams aimed randomly but directly into civilian neighborhoods or…let’s say…bombings and burning of villages in Darfur? Just for starters?
I don’t support them and the people who do such things should be held accountable by the appropriate authorities.
Usually, Howie, the way it plays out, some jerks send over a couple of those miserable little rockets, maybe kill an Israeli or two, and then Israel makes a whole town pay with their lives.
When you exclude that part of the dialog, and the fact that the US should not be so one sided in its support of such a useless ally, a trouble maker in the region that provokes much of the violence it receives and shows no ability to sustain peace talks and diplomacy,
why should the US back such a country so completely….what value to the US?
Answer: NONE. It costs BILLIONS of dollars and many American lives to allow Israel to throw its weight around.
When you forget THAT side, howie, you lose all credibility with me.
Let’s see if you stick around.
Buzz…
You did not address my point. You made a statement, that I completely disagree with, that Israel is the only country that with indifference to civilian casualities.
To begin with…many in the IDF are trained to avoid just that. I personally know a young man that took a bullet to head in Jenin because he entered a house without throwing a gernade in first, to avoid civilian casualities…but you won’t believe that so we can move on…
Now…back to my question…Israel is the only country with indifference to civilian casualities…let’s see you back that up. I name:
Syria in its bombing of Hama
Russia
Afganistan
Iraq..esp. with the kurds
Iran
Sudan
Congo
Lebanon
That is just a superficial…overview…then of course there are the decades of Palestinian terrorists that almost soley target civilian populations.
Let’s see if you stick around or deteriorate into namecalling or continuing to avoid my counter-points.
Buzz-
“I don’t support them and the people who do such things should be held accountable by the appropriate authorities.”
Buzz, Buzz…their authorities are the ones that suppport and direct them on their missions…come on…
Last point first.
Look, howard…I don’t support terrorism. Turn them over to whoever you want…abuse them at Guantanamo or clown them around naked and waterboard them at Abu Graib. Do whatever makes you feel superior. I have little regard for terrorists or the state leaders who provoke them.
To your first point:
Saying Israel is the ONLY state that shows indifference to civilian casualties is hardly the centerpiece of my posts. It was actually an unintentional tangent to the main points which YOU have chosen to avoid, not me.
You are harping and nitpicking on a single tangent to avoid the main point. Sure, Israel is not the ONLY criminal state that has been repeatedly condemned by the UN for excessive force and excessive civilian casualties. Fine. They are one among many that act with indifference to civilian lives.
Congratulations! You win.
It wasn’t my point to stand them aside as the sole purveyor of state based terrorism. Obviously, there are others. Scheuer was saying that the US should be indifferent to civilian casualties and I was actually sympathetic to the POV, sadly, as a consequence of fighting terrorism and their tactic of using human shields.
You can claim victory now and cut n run oryou can address the actual point of the post which is Israel is not worth a dollar or a life to Americans.They are not an ally worth our lop-sided support in the region. Actually, they are the cause of much pain, suffering and misery.
Michael Scheuer says nay to that. Bin Laden is fighting a war of resistance to American hegemony in the middle east, and of course he is completely correct.
In this you are completely incorrect, reduce Bin-Laden and his ideological base to a mere reaction rather than an action in itself (overstating the effect and importance of your country and reducing the people in the Middle-East in the same breath). Are Al-Quaeda’s region-wide attacks also merely “resistance to American hegemony”? Is every single Middle-Eastern country not run by a theocratic regime a milestone of US power?
You accuse people of believing in generalist statements and propaganda, but you yourself seem to like the two more than others.
I will attempt to check what exactly was said and meant by indifference to civilian casualties. That does not sound like a policy anyone but Israel would take.
Bias and senseless hatred are fun, aren’t they?
Scheuer, on civilian casualties, probably just means that we should be ruthless when we have to attack. The problem, strategically, with terrorism is the human shield factor.
You encourage terrorist to attack and hide behind civilians. To be effective, counter-terrorism has to be willing and demonstrate willingness to shed civilian blood in these cases.
That is a cold hard fact.
Sounds like the kind of reasoning an Israeli military man would make - often after several years of seeing artillery squads shoot out of residential areas, civilians being actively used as human shields (openly called to serve as such to prevent Israeli attacks), and teenagers being sent out wearing explosive belts.
And yet criticize Israel to no end, while supporting the above premise when someone who echoes your preconceived notions makes the same argument.
Andrew
You appear to be a neocon and I am afraid neocons, zionists and other right-wing agents who seeks to prod the US into matters beyond the interest and benefit of its own self-interests are extremely resistant to the facts.
I’m an unofficial admirer of people who make a rule of crassly throwing around labels they don’t even understand. What’s a Neo-Conservative, please? And what’s a Zionist, in your own words?
And I’m pretty suspicious of anyone who goes around calling people right-wing “agents”, not only because it is a tactic people use to justify to themselves that the person they speak to is not *real* as much as some kind of propagandist or agent provocateur, but also because claims of conspiracy and worldwide manipulation soon follow.
That sort of rubbish gets tiresome after a while.
Exhibit A: All neocons have drunk the koolaid that Islamic Extremists hate our freedoms and this is a Clash of Civilizations which cannot be resolved until one side is destroyed or atleast completely crushed and subjugated. You appear to support the “They hate our freedom fries” narrative.
Has Andrew been going around demanding that the US crush the Middle-East? Please let me know when he does. Or when he begins referring to the Middle-East (or Islam) as a monolithic entity while using simplistic arguments.
Exhibit B: Indifference to past and present facts. Comparing Bin Laden to Nazis or the GWOT to WWII is like comparing Vladimir Lenin to Che Guevara.
Some people claim that the Nazis merely rose because of the unfair agreements forced of Germany post-WWI. They, like you, focus so much on the context that involves a personal issue (their country, or a country that they hate) that they essentially ignore the details and particulars - making them irrelevant. You use blanket statements and accuse others of making the very fallacies that you yourself make constantly as part of your argument.
We armed and trained the Taliban. Like all temp dictators we have propped up, they have exceeded their usefulness and cost more money than they make.
You confuse the Taliban with Al-Quaeda, proving yet again that you thing the details are irrelevant. Allies they were, but different they still be.
Further, the US didn’t arm and train the Taliban as much as it supported Pakistani efforts to arm and train the Taliban, seeing as it was the only available military power to oppose the Soviet Union in the region. As much as “choosing the lesser of two evils” leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth, often it is the only remaining choice.
The mistake later made was in allowing Pakistan to determine the future of the region, assuming that the country has a superior understanding of local and regional politics and thus actually knows what it’s doing. A mistake which has led post-9/11 US officials to view the Pakistani leadership and officials in a very bad light.
Bin Laden stated precisely the reasons why he attacked the US. Like all cheap propagandists, the only person who NEVER gets quoted is the boogeyman in question.
Indeed. The fact that Bin-Laden is a propagandist in his own right never entered your mind, did it? For Bin-Laden, the “resistance” against “US interests” is merely a means to an end, as well as being a unifying external enemy one can blame for all the ills around. But amusingly, you focus on the tapes he releases for the consumption of the US citizens - and you take it as divine truth without for a minute suspecting the message.
Bin-Laden attacked the United-States because it’s big. Because he wins if the US retaliates and he wins if it doesn’t. Either tactic serves the goals that his organization has also stated time and time again (but which people like you seem to conveniently close their ears to). For Al-Quaeda, no current Middle-Eastern government conforms to the higher ideal of the Caliphate, which by the Qutbist beliefs that Bin-Laden conforms to, must arise while fighting tooth and nail the people who seek to destroy Islam, be they World Jewry, Western moral corruption, or their agents within the Muslim Umma.
They hate our freedoms?
Bush hates our freedoms.
He has been far more effective in stifling them.
Someone has got to put these neocon porkers to rest.
You really do live in a dreamland of populist statements, don’t you?
Usually, Howie, the way it plays out, some jerks send over a couple of those miserable little rockets, maybe kill an Israeli or two, and then Israel makes a whole town pay with their lives.
An interesting statement. Would you like to back it with actual facts, name a town or two that Israel supposedly destroyed while burying its entire populace in some mass-grave?
Try several hundred, before any actual Israeli responce. Back when the rocket barrages first started flying over Sderot and other small towns in the area, the Israeli army’s lack of response went unnoticed by the world. Another year of firing only at launchers that fired out of sand dunes also saw no appreciation.
In case you didn’t know, Israel has early-warning systems to warn citizens of such barrages. Israel also has construction laws that place bomb shelters in every tenement block, and a room made of armored concrete in every apartment and house. This, combined with the fact that Israel has acted for years to prevent Palestinian “resistance” groups from having materials and facilities to produce better rockets, results in a low Israeli civilian casualty rate from such barrages.
But by your logic, Israel should refrain from shooting at the “resistance” or its launching crews if civilians get hurt in the same area, just to even the odds a little - make it all “fair”. Acting against the people who send out suicide-bombers into crowded regions, or snipers into Yeshivas and schools, should also be left aside. To even out the death-tolls.
When you exclude that part of the dialog, and the fact that the US should not be so one sided in its support of such a useless ally, a trouble maker in the region that provokes much of the violence it receives and shows no ability to sustain peace talks and diplomacy,
Ah yes, Israel, the regional trouble-maker… Provoking violence from day one, merely by declaring its very existence.
As for peace talks and diplomacy, Israel has these peace agremeents with Egypt and Jordan. They were probably forced on the regional trouble-maker. *eyeroll*
Yet again, you make a superficial observation, conclude that the observation suits your preconceived notions, and leave it at that. You don’t go into the history of the region, the politics, all the little details that would have actually made an argument you make worth listening to.
why should the US back such a country so completely….what value to the US?
Answer: NONE. It costs BILLIONS of dollars and many American lives to allow Israel to throw its weight around.
Since 1973, the United States has been supporting Israel as a reliable ally and a friend. Israel is a democratic country, fought against the influence of the Soviet Union in the area back in the day, is similar enough to the US culturally to make it likeable, a sound economic and intellectual ally (all those billions that you supposedly spend on Israel? they go right back to you, and then some).
Israel helps the US with intel, is willing to trust in the US enough to keep silent as SCUD missiles (quite likely to have been armed with chemical weapons) hit its cities, and is overall an actual friend in a region that at best has agreements of convenience.
Salam Buzz Kill,
I read your comments often over at Eteraz’s blog and tend to agree with you a lot but not this time.
Roman has already responded to the point I want to rebut, namely the one about Bin Laden fighting American hegemony in the Middle East.
Also…
“To be effective, counter-terrorism has to be willing and demonstrate willingness to shed civilian blood in these cases.
That is a cold hard fact.”
I find it very interesting you say that because you clearly stated that you don’t support the terrorist acts carried out by Palestinian groups and yet you’re very critical of Israeli bombardments against those who fire the rockets from civilian areas.
Call me an idealist but for the record, I don’t support ignoring civilian casualties regardless of whatever party engages in such methods.
Michael Scheuer is misguided. It looks like he happily consumed al-Qaeda’s propaganda.
“You appear to be a neocon and I am afraid neocons, zionists and other right-wing agents who seeks to prod the US into matters beyond the interest and benefit of its own self-interests are extremely resistant to the facts.”
That’s not an argument. That’s simply an accusation.
Of course I am after my own self-interest. Who isn’t?
I grew up in West-Berlin, surrounded by hostile Soviet troops and protected by the US.
And when I studied in Haifa, Hizbullah fired rockets at my university.
So yes, I support the US and Israel, and self-interest is one reason for it.
As to your “exhibits”:
“Exhibit A: All neocons have drunk the koolaid that Islamic Extremists hate our freedoms”
They do. Pointing out that neo-cons believe that is not an argument. Proving us wrong would be.
But if you don’t believe that Islamic extremists hate our freedoms, then feel free to demonstrate it by going to any country where Islamic extremists have the power to stop you and see how many of our freedoms you can enjoy.
“Exhibit B: Indifference to past and present facts”
Actually, that is simply an accusation; and what’s worse, it’s a wrong one. In contrast to their opponents neo-cons are quite happy to learn about the present and know about the past.
I can tell you that I know a lot more about, say, Israel than those who criticise it. I have been there, during a war, was a target. I know how Israel reacted (they evacuated the north) and how Lebanon did (they did not evacuate). I know that Hizbullah fired rockets indiscriminately at civilian targets (which was why our university was evacuated) while Israel dropped leaflets first warning civilians about the impending bombing of terrorist positions.
During that time, summer 2006, there were many neo-cons, Jewish and non-Jewish, in Israel to see what was going on. I think it is a bit arrogant of you to claim that we are “indifferent” to present facts, given that we actually GO THERE and LOOK.
As for facts past, we could meet in person some time and test out who knows more about European and middle-eastern history. But I have to warn you: I understand German and can read primary sources about Nazi Germany. I also understand enough Hebrew to read Israeli sources (although admittedly slowly). The other “neo-cons” here speak Hebrew fluently as well as Russian. We also understand Soviet history because we have been there. I have SEEN Soviet history in the making, watched their television, heard their jokes, saw their police and soldiers.
Between Roman and myself I am sure the two of us each know more about German/Soviet/Israeli history than YOU or most non-neo-cons.
In my experience neo-cons are usually much better educated than moon bats. Sorry.
Hehehehe… just the post to attract the stranger fringe dwellers. Lemme guess… BK is a Ron Paul supporter or somesuch.
The Crazy Uncle is on to us? Oh, no… there goes another good blog.
Dedicated to AB-
An Irish daughter had not been home for over 5 years. Upon her return, her Father cussed her out….
‘Where have ye been all this time? Why did ye not write to us, not even a line? Why didn’t ye call? Can ye not understand what ye put yer old Mother thru?’
The girl, crying, replied, ‘Sniff, sniff….Dad….I became a prostitute…’
‘Ye what!!? Out of here, ye shameless Harlot! Sinner! You’re a disgrace to this Catholic family.’
‘OK, Dad– as ye wish. I just came back to give Mum this luxurious fur coat, Title Deed to a ten bedroom mansion plus a $5 million savings certificate. For me little brother, this gold Rolex.
And for ye Daddy, the sparkling new Mercedes Limited Edition Convertible that’s parked outside— plus a membership to the Country Club, (takes a breath)…………. and an invitation for ye all to spend New Years Eve on board my New Yacht in the Riviera and……’
(Her father interrupts)
‘Now what was it ye said ye had become?’ says Dad.
Girl, crying again, ‘Sniff, sniff….a prostitute, Daddy! Sniff, sniff.’
‘Oh! Be Gosh! Ye scared me half to death, girl! I thought ye said a Protestant. Come here and give yer old Dad a hug.’
I will respond to one issue since I can’t stand long, nasty tirades about how I am too judgemental and throw tirades (IOW, hypocrisy)
Michael Scheuer’s idea was that Bin Laden was fighting a war of resistance against the West, namely America, he is not a terrorist, but an insurgent.
He’s not talking about every act of terrorism in the middle east, he’s talking about Bin Laden’s ideological stance.
Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are factions, LOOSE factions with their own ideas and their own agendas.
Let’s take Osama Bin Laden as a starter since he acts as an inspirer, NOT a commander in most cases.
Who has PROOF Bin Laden, who has verbally confirmed Michael Scheuer’s read on his motives, is not an insurgent but a terrorist who would have attacked the US because he “hates our freedoms” or some other such cut n paste phrase? Who can show me that he would attack the West regardless of whether the US Military occupies Saudi Arabia and other areas of the Middle East or not.
No one has provided ANY proof. You just say I am wrong and make accusations against me on the same basis.
I am all eyes and ears. Make your effin case…
About Israel:
Everyone knows the body count, everyone knows about all of the condemnations from the UN, everyone knows the facts.
Blind support for Israel is a special affliction which America suffers from like a disease.
The same way some parts of the Middle East reacts with Islamic extremism.
You call me a hater. I call you delusional. Everyone who is not 100% behind Israel is a anti-semite.
Count the fucking bodies.
I told you guys Buzz would start cussing and stuff…you can always predict the type…
“Everyone knows the body count, everyone knows about all of the condemnations from the UN, everyone knows the facts.”
Yes, everyone knows the body count. That’s why nobody takes you seriously.
It’s easy to receive condemnations from the UN if you are Jewish.
So the UN is anti-semitic?
That’s incredibly deluded!
Yeah, no answers. Just personal attacks…
Exactly what I thought.
“So the UN is anti-semitic?”
Yes.
“Yeah, no answers. Just personal attacks…”
You are not the UN.
So can you please explain why the UN either misrepresents world view or why the whole world hates Israel / Jews.
This is really interesting, so Israel is very misunderstood and does not kill orders of magnitude the number of their civilians lost…like this whole fictional account of Israel killing 1000 lebanese civilians in July/August 2006, crushing Lebanon civil infrastructure, water treatment plants, electricity, etc.
Sir, are you wearing one of the foil hats too?
Howie - LOL
Buzz Kill -
You are absolutely right. The Elders of Zion created the illegal Zionist entity to kill as many people as possible because they are evil. The actual purpose of Israel is to be evil. We, as a matter of fact, eat mostly Palestinian babies (and the occasional Christian American when we manage to dupe one of them into coming to “Jerusalem” - which is, as everyone knows, actually a huge concentration camp/Palestinian babies processing plant). The brave, pure UN is valiantly trying to stand up to our empire of evil. And the KKK, of course, is similarly fighting our iron grasp on one of our client-states, the United States of America.
Since we are so evil and powerful, I will now (as an official representative of the Elders) gloat - seeing as our operatives will liquidate you soon.
Here it comes: MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *cough, cough* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Is this a Pajamas Media site? How did so many pro-Israel right-wingers crowd onto one post? Are you
kooksfolks a little far from the “Sanity” Squids sites?Racoon…love your style.
But no substance.
So, no comment.
Come back with something tangible and we can chat.
All you all are avoiding the main subject: Bin Laden. Forget about Israel for now.
I will respond to one issue since I can’t stand long, nasty tirades about how I am too judgemental and throw tirades (IOW, hypocrisy)
A fine way of avoiding a discussion.
Michael Scheuer’s idea was that Bin Laden was fighting a war of resistance against the West, namely America, he is not a terrorist, but an insurgent.
He’s not talking about every act of terrorism in the middle east, he’s talking about Bin Laden’s ideological stance.
Indeed? I was specifically talking about terrorist acts that were comitted by Al-Quaeda, or groups that have joined it and share its ideological stance.
You speak as someone who has never, in his entire life, read Al-Quaeda’s own manifesto, or investigated their religious motivation reasoning.
Let’s take Osama Bin Laden as a starter since he acts as an inspirer, NOT a commander in most cases.
Who has PROOF Bin Laden, who has verbally confirmed Michael Scheuer’s read on his motives, is not an insurgent but a terrorist who would have attacked the US because he “hates our freedoms” or some other such cut n paste phrase?
Bin-Laden’s words in places other than his tapes, such as his letter to the American people that demanded that they abandon their vices, or his claim that the Taliban was the sole “true” nation in the region, and the only one that deserved Islamic support. Actually bothering to follow his actions in the 90-98 period (in Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, and Yemen).
Actually bothering to read up on Qutbist ideology, Bin-Laden’s own set of beliefs.
Who can show me that he would attack the West regardless of whether the US Military occupies Saudi Arabia and other areas of the Middle East or not.
The US *occupies* Saudi Arabia? I… see. There’s really no point with debating the issue with you, is it. At this point, you have begun to scare me.
No one has provided ANY proof. You just say I am wrong and make accusations against me on the same basis.
No, not really. It may look like that when you only read the first line of each reply, though. After all, you’ve already said that you’re not here to read “rants” or actually discuss anything.
I am all eyes and ears. Make your effin case…
No. You make yours. Because so far, you have not actually based your case on any facts beyond Bin-Laden’s tapes to Americans, which were - and only one utterly blinded by partisanship and bias won’t see that - complete propaganda.
About Israel:
Everyone knows the body count, everyone knows about all of the condemnations from the UN, everyone knows the facts.
Quite. And yet, even Kofi Annan, in his final comment on the UN Human Rights Council, stated that it was controlled by countries that - to stifle all possible debate on their own human rights infractions - focuses its entire ire on Israel. The previous Council was *disbanded* for the same reason.
How many special sessions over Israel, eh? And how many over Sudan (genocidal civil war), or China (placing ideological and religious minorities in concentration camps - camps they rarely leave alive), or North Korea (experiments of chemical weapons on unsuspecting civilians).
The UN in its entirety is a fine example of what happens when the ideal becomes ‘dialogue’, and the mob is the true ruler. The UN, as a rule, condemns only those who wouldn’t laugh or give it the finger. Israel actually listens to the UN, whereas Russia would simply laugh (you have the freedom to do what Putin tells you to do, after all, and Putin allows laughing at the UN).
For decades, brutal dictators simply laughed at the UN, playing games of ‘if you condemn me, I won’t talk with you’, siphoning off the UN aid money and essentially letting the UN become the main body responsible for the well-being of their own citizens.
The UN has all the relevance of the global distraction and joke that it is - very little.
Blind support for Israel is a special affliction which America suffers from like a disease.
No support is blind, and every aid dollar comes with strings attached. If anything, Israel is one of the few countries the US aids that actually bothers noting the strings. The rest usually cut them when the US isn’t looking - and then play games of “strings? what strings? just gimme aid” in the rather amusing style of Saudi Arabia and its education system.
But in any case, so far you’re the one who looks diseased.
You call me a hater. I call you delusional. Everyone who is not 100% behind Israel is a anti-semite.
Very diseased. And very much into dumb slogans and crass accusations.
Count the fucking bodies.
I’m counting. I’ve also noted that part of my previous reply that you didn’t bother reading at all. By your logic, Israel should give Palestinian terrorists better guns and refrain from early warning systems or shelters and the like. Just to even the odds a little. Israel should do further and stop arresting all those people in the process of executing (or planning) suicide bombings and the like. It isn’t fair, after all.
Oh, and not only am I counting, I can also do number comparisons between this military conflict and others worldwide, and in recent history. Which is why, as Andrew stated, not everyone here bothers listening to you.
This is really interesting, so Israel is very misunderstood and does not kill orders of magnitude the number of their civilians lost…like this whole fictional account of Israel killing 1000 lebanese civilians in July/August 2006, crushing Lebanon civil infrastructure, water treatment plants, electricity, etc.
Begging your pardon? Perhaps we should wait for someone to wage a full-scale offensive war on us again, like in the good old days. We should just disregard cross-border raids and shelling and missiles and the like - after all, if people can live in bomb shelters on and off for a few years, without having any security, then the events can be safely ignored.
Only when the consequences of the aforementioned actions (a full-scale war, or didn’t you do your homework on casus-belli?) come around do people begin to notice. And play number games. Perhaps half of Israel should live in bomb shelters, and fear to board buses, or go to restaurants. This is apparently a normal situation, and war is in no way justifiable in such a case it would seem - not unless a 10,000 people are dead.
In the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein launched SCUDs into Israel. They didn’t cause much harm, because Israel was incredibly well-prepared to being attacked (even with malfunctioning PATRIOT anti-missile sites). By your logic, Israel would have not been considered a nation under attack unless it suffered inhuman casualties.
Newsflash, mate. All conventional wars have a large civilian body-count. It’s why nations in such wars do their very best to move the fighting away from their home front, and into the enemy’s home front.
So… should Israel avoid waging war in countries that prefer to hide behind cross-border guerrilla tactics? What should Israel do instead, I wonder?
Ah yes, invest in bigger walls and defense systems, no doubt. Some people don’t like the walls much, though.
Sir, are you wearing one of the foil hats too?
Yours is a lovely shape though, really.
*inhuman casualties = inhuman casualty rates.
A fine way of avoiding a discussion.
Roman,
You write three foot long posts. Too much for my general interest level. Especially when peppered more with insults than substance. Nevertheless, I’m holding my nose and goin’ in….
I’ll take a couple of points now and more when I catch my breath again.
Bin Laden first:
You point of view is in direct contradiction to the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station in the CIA for several years.
Who should I believe? You? Ha!
Military Occupation:
The US *occupies* Saudi Arabia? I… see. There’s really no point with debating the issue with you, is it. At this point, you have begun to scare me.
There are, generally, two kinds of occupation: friendly and beligerant. The US has a military presence in many countries around the world, including Saudi Arabia, an occupation of military bases, if you will, which have been bombed and resented by many of the Saudis for years. You can read about it
I am always glad to clarify something for someone scared of the truth.
More later.
you can read about it here
Newsflash, mate. All conventional wars have a large civilian body-count. It’s why nations in such wars do their very best to move the fighting away from their home front, and into the enemy’s home front.
So… should Israel avoid waging war in countries that prefer to hide behind cross-border guerrilla tactics? What should Israel do instead, I wonder?
Roman
You throw around terms like a ditz and them jump on me like a professor of polisci….
CONVENTIONAL WARFARE?
Really? You mean where the “state” of Hamas puts on their red coats and blue hats and lines up against Israel with rifles in the front, archers in the middle and artillery in the rear? (suppress your impulses)
Newsflash for you, “matey:” We’re not talking about conventional war. You can revise your ideas on conventional wars, urban wars, insurgencies
Annoying to be nitpicked, eh?
To the point, I actually posted, before being piled on, that I was attempting to understand Michael Scheuer’s disinterest in civilian casualties (and Drima’s objection).
What I realized (and wrote, had you bothered to read) was that counter-terrorism can actually force cases of civilian casualties when human shields are being used.
You write three foot long posts. Too much for my general interest level. Especially when peppered more with insults than substance. Nevertheless, I’m holding my nose and goin’ in….
Insults? I only use them in reply to others in the same vein, or worse.
You point of view is in direct contradiction to the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station in the CIA for several years.
Who should I believe? You? Ha!
Indeed. And had he stated an opinion directly opposite to his current, you would have called him a neocon lackey. Which is why I don’t listen to you much, and nor do I base my opinion on the words of a single person - especially one who gained Osama Bin-Laden’s personal support for a book.
Nor do I support stupid flip-flops. Scheuer wrote in a book of his in 2002 that there was evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Quaeda, yet he denied that link after the war had happened, when it became popular to voice the view.
I’ve also read through several interviews made by Scheuer, and this had led me to the conclusion that he had studied Bin-Laden for so long that he has started admiring the man. Scheuer sees Bin-Laden as a hero figure, one that he had to oppose because it was part of his job, but one that he doesn’t quite oppose personally.
It happens in his line of work - you analyze someone to the point where you become sympathetic to him, because you think that you know him so well that he might as well be your best friend and next-door neighbor.
There are, generally, two kinds of occupation: friendly and beligerant. The US has a military presence in many countries around the world, including Saudi Arabia, an occupation of military bases, if you will, which have been bombed and resented by many of the Saudis for years. You can read about it
I am always glad to clarify something for someone scared of the truth.
More later.
Scared of the truth, eh? I’m always scared of someone who thinks he knows everything.
The US and Saudi Arabia had an agreement on very limited military presence since the 80’s. During the first Gulf War, Saudi-Arabia’s government *invited* the US to help push Saddam Hussein back (Bin-Laden, I might add, asked that he and his fearless fanatics be used to beat back Saddam - the House of Saud simply laughed at him, and kicked him out of the country).
No matter how many times you may play with words, having an open and official agreement on military presence isn’t occupation. And yes, many people in Saudi Arabia resented US presence - perhaps you didn’t quite realize just what is being taught in Saudi Arabia, and why it isn’t at all surprising that Bin-Laden hails from there. Saudi Arabia is famous for how it blames everything and anything on the filthy infidels, including its own AIDS statistics.
Really? You mean where the “state” of Hamas puts on their red coats and blue hats and lines up against Israel with rifles in the front, archers in the middle and artillery in the rear? (suppress your impulses)
Amusing, for a moment. One side fights conventionally, while the other fights unconventionally. Pretty obvious, one should think. Perhaps Israel should counter unconventional warfare by forming its own death squads, to better fit the path?
Also, in case you didn’t quite follow, when an organization that is part of the government attacks the nation next door (Lebanon and Israel, in case you still don’t quite follow) it a casus-belli on the state-to-state level. In fact, merely letting an armed organization freely use your territory to attack your neighboring state is casus belli.
What I realized (and wrote, had you bothered to read) was that counter-terrorism can actually force cases of civilian casualties when human shields are being used.
Had you bothered reading my reply on the issue, you would have realized that I quite understood the point. I think your blind hatred for Israel sort of sidetracked you there, though.
Also, in case you didn’t quite follow, when an organization that is part of the government attacks the nation next door (Lebanon and Israel, in case you still don’t quite follow) it a casus-belli on the state-to-state level. In fact, merely letting an armed organization freely use your territory to attack your neighboring state is casus belli.
Noooooo….Roman
That square peg won’t square the circle. You made a blunder, you egomaniac and a sprinkling of magic dust and some latin like “casus-belli” will not cover-up the situation. This is not conventional warfare and that has been the crux of a lot of neocon alibis for ignoring the geneva convention and other basic human rights common to the old rules of engagement in “conventional warfare.”
So it is conventional when it suits and terrorism when it does not?
Just admit your mistake and more on…
This has become a nitpick fest and you put yourself aside from the best experts on the subject.
I am comfortable with what I read on the situation and you have done nothing to change my opinion about Michael Scheuer’s ideas, Osama Bin Laden or Isreal.
Adios. Out.
I like my joke better than his discussion
I like my joke better than his discussion
You know the sad part? Me too.
“Perhaps Israel should counter unconventional warfare by forming its own death squads, to better fit the path?”
You know, I sometimes think that Israel should do that; and encourage Israelis to make their own rockets and fire them at a few Arab schools, just to see if the world would finally condemn such attacks when Jews commit them.
I know it’s wrong and that Israel cannot do it. (It would ultimately lead to Israel’s defeat, I am sure.) But I cannot fail to notice that whenever somebody makes up a story about an Israeli shooting an Arab civilian for fun, the world suddenly condemns the act of killing civilians.
Leave a Comment