[pbleighton]

Interesting article by a hawk:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7033001923.html

[Winstonm]

Interesting that a member of The Council on Foreign Relations would admit that the sloganizing was politically motivated - and also interesting that this author would distance the Council from the Bush/Cheney administration.

[pbleighton]

"Interesting that a member of The Council on Foreign Relations would admit that the sloganizing was politically motivated - and also interesting that this author would distance the Council from the Bush/Cheney administration."

Well, he is a Democrat

And the New Republic is feeling just a LITTLE defensive about being wrong about Iraq

Peter

[Winstonm]

I especially noted these words:

Quote

"Al-Qaeda" is logical, but experts now consider it more an inspiration than a mass organization.

Hasn't Al-Qaeda been the great big boogeyman this whole time? And now experts say Al-Qaeda doesn't exist as a mass organization - just what the "kooky" bloggers have been saying for years.

Wonder what else the "kooky" bloggers have right that MSM denies?

[mike777]

Can we agree it exists as a mass killer org? Of course if you just view it as the Great White Whale or bogeyman hard to agree on anything.

[Winstonm]

Mass killer organization? I wonder what is so difficult about comprehending these words: doesn't exist as a mass organization experts agree.

If you want to ask me if there are terrorist groups in the world, my answer is yes. They are in Spain, Italy, the middle east, Africa, and just about anywhere else in the world you want to name.

But are they all integrated into some kind of terrorist Cosa Nostra? I don't think so. However, I know there is proof of their existence - they have it in a secret locker down at the Gitmo - along with the names of the kidnappers of the Lindberg baby and proof that mini nukes caused the Great San Francisco earthquake.

[mike777]

I am confused is Al Q a mass killer org or not? Does it exist or did it ever exist as a mass killer org or is it just a figmant of my imagination? If a mass killer org., next will be telling me Yellowstone Park is some gigantic volcano covering several states and can blow at anytime, yes?

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Apr 1 2007, 02:46 PM, said:

I am confused is Al Q a mass killer org or not? Does it exist or did it ever exist as a mass killer org or is just a figmant of my imagination? If a mass killer org., next will be telling me Yellowstone Park is some gigantic volcano covering several states and can blow at anytime, yes?

I thought that we had discussed this topic, however, that might have been on another mailing list. Regardless, here's my take on matters.

I think that El Qaeda is largely a "projection" of the US security establishment. When organizations like the CIA evolved they believed that their primary role was combatting a single monolithic threat (Communism) with a heirarchical organizational structure. I'm not claiming that this mind set was necessarily true. (I think that it was a mistake to believe that the anti-colonial revolutions that swept the third world had all that much to do with "communism", but that was the mind set at the time).

The US security and foreign policy establishment seems incapable of adjusting its security framework away from State actors and formal heirarchies over to decentralized distributed networks. The US invented a monothic organization structure called El Qaeda so we had something to target and destroy.

I'm not claiming that there aren't large numbers of Islamic extremists in world, many of whom seem committed to armed struggle against a wide variety of targets (the West, Russia, China, Israel...) However, I think that this is a broadbased movement that will continue to exist regardless of what happens to Osama bin Laden.

[luke warm]

i'm as confused as mike... winston seems to give a lot of credence to some "experts" saying that al q "doesn't exist as a mass organization" ... richard seems to imply that the cia and others largely "projectd" al q, and flat out states that "The US invented a monothic organization structure called El Qaeda so we had something to target and destroy."

what confuses me about it is, did 9/11 really happen and was al q responsible? if it did and if they were, i'd be hesitant about accusing someone of making it up

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Apr 1 2007, 06:46 AM, said:

I am confused is Al Q a mass killer org or not? Does it exist or did it ever exist as a mass killer org or is just a figmant of my imagination? If a mass killer org., next will be telling me Yellowstone Park is some gigantic volcano covering several states and can blow at anytime, yes?

I don't know about al-Qaeda, but there certainly is an oil-Qaeda.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Apr 1 2007, 05:50 PM, said:

what confuses me about it is, did 9/11 really happen and was al q responsible? if it did and if they were, i'd be hesitant about accusing someone of making it up

I believe that the 911 attacks were launched by an organization that calls itself Al Qaeda. This organization was run by Osama bin Laden and based out of Afghanistan. I suspect that it is currently working out of Pakistan.

Furthermore, I believe that there are large numbers of militant Islamic extremists in the world. Many of these groups have adopted the name Al Qaeda as "brand".

I do not believe that there is a central organization heirarchy unifying these two groups. Killing Osama bin Laden or his top lieutenants would (probably) impact the command and control of the structure based in Pakistan. However, don't beleive that it would have any significant impact on the broadbased movement.

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Apr 1 2007, 09:50 AM, said:

i'm as confused as mike... winston seems to give a lot of credence to some "experts" saying that al q "doesn't exist as a mass organization" ... richard seems to imply that the cia and others largely "projectd" al q, and flat out states that "The US invented a monothic organization structure called El Qaeda so we had something to target and destroy."

what confuses me about it is, did 9/11 really happen and was al q responsible? if it did and if they were, i'd be hesitant about accusing someone of making it up

Jimmy, you are exactly right - everything that is happening now from Afghanistan to Somalia to Iraq to Guantenemo, etc., is all based on the events of 9-11 and who we were told was responsible for the attacks.

The events of 9-11 are still the main issue.

[mike777]

Are the events of 9-11 really the main issue or just the result of whatever the main issue really is that existed well before 9-11, whatever it is?

Is everthing happening today based on whatever the main issue was well before 9-11? Whatever it is?

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Apr 1 2007, 10:28 PM, said:

Are the events of 9-11 really the main issue or just the result of whatever the main issue really is that existed well before 9-11, whatever it is?

Is everthing happening today based on whatever the main issue was well before 9-11? Whatever it is?

From my perspective, the "main issue" has to do with acceptance of Enlightenment based values that were traditionally believed to underpin "the West".

I believe that the 911 attack was a graphic wake up call that successful integration and globalization still has a long way to go. Indeed, one of my biggest fears arising out of 911 is the way in which the US seems to be backsliding towards authoritarianism.

The following piece in the National Review scared me a lot

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M...WUyNmJlZmQ2NzE=

Quote

Romney on Enemy Combatants  [Ramesh Ponnuru]

Crane says he was disappointed with Romney's answer to his question the other night. Crane asked if Romney believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review. Romney said he would want to hear the pros and cons from smart lawyers before he made up his mind. Crane said that he had asked Giuliani the same question a few weeks ago. The mayor said that he would want to use this authority infrequently.

[mike777]

Yes, inevitable I think for any country after such an attack as 9-11 or any other example from thousands of years of History. Reading what happened after the start of WW11 or the Civil War or even how we fought the first war under our brand new Constitutuion. See the War of the Old NorthWest.

Somehow we stopped the slide to fascism if not to continued racism time and time again. I hope and pray we have the strength as a country to once again find the middle ground between a suicide pact or fascisim.

"No review"....geez what a response to a question like that ugggg.....by very very smart people, scary.

[Winstonm]

"They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ...
Benjamin Franklin

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Apr 1 2007, 02:28 PM, said:

Are the events of 9-11 really the main issue or just the result of whatever the main issue really is that existed well before 9-11, whatever it is?

Is everthing happening today based on whatever the main issue was well before 9-11? Whatever it is?

I would venture to say 9-11 is still the main issue. Consider this from October 2006:

Quote

Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying.
Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002.

Fortunately, those 16% have Bill O'Reilly and Danny Bonaduce on their side. O'Reilly suggests dissenters "would be thrown in jail" if this were WWII, and Bonaduce says dissenters should be hanged for treason. Good to know there is such level-headed debate on our airways.

[mike777]

Again Winston exactly what is it about 9-11 that is an issue, the number one issue today and not before 9-11? Death? Terror? what? They all existed well before 9-11.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Apr 1 2007, 08:27 PM, said:

Again Winston exactly what is it about 9-11 that is an issue, the number one issue today and not before 9-11? Death? Terror? what? They all existed well before 9-11.

Sorry, Mike, I thought the poll made it self-evident but I guess not. The point is that only 16% now accept the official reason for Afghanistan, Iraq, The Patriot Act, Homeland Security, John Warner Defense Act, and the Military Commissions Act.

Each item listed is a direct outgrowth of the events that occurred on 9-11. 28% of those polled believe the Bush administration is lying about 9-11; 53% believe the Bush administration is hiding something about 9-11; only 16% believe we have been told the whole story of 9-11; 3% are unsure.

When 81% polled question the truthfulness of the administration's explanation of the events, it would make sense to me that the issue is trust.

When you lose the public trust, you lose the ability to lead; at that point, all you can do is dictate.

[mike777]

Trust is the main issue on the war of terror? Geez I thought it was killing/stopping the bad guys but anyway, if Bush is the problem we have an election coming to solve that issue I hope. But I do think you point out the huge gulf in what people see as the main issue, killing bad guys or trust.