Al Queda Versus the Soviet Empire

Niall001 · Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:42 am Post subject: Al Queda Versus the Soviet Empire

In other threads, there are discussions about what standards and tactics are appropriate for fighting Al Queda and Iraqi insurgents.

It seems to me that many of the arguments are based on an assumption that Al Queda pose some sort of new and greater threat than traditional enemies and that because of this certain 'tactics' are necessary.

When I look at it, I see Al Queda as a pretty pathetic threat when compared to the Nazis, the Soviets or even modern China. They are badly organised, poorly armed and ideologically divided.

So, what I want to know is, do you kids see Al Queda as a greater threat than Soviet Russia and if so why?

Let us agree, there is no one single reality. Not upon this stage, not in this world, all is in the mind... imagination is the only truth. Because it cannot be contradicted except by other imaginations - Richard Matheson

There are no conclusive indications by which waking life can be distinguished from sleep - Rene Descartes

ADO15

I never saw the Soviet Union as a threat. Didn't want to live there, but given their clear lack of intention to attack, they were never much of a risk. Nutters like Reagan, on the other hand....

_________________________________________________________

Il Sotto Seme La Neva

Frank 013

I do see the newer form of terrorist’s tactics as a greater threat. They do not have the military might to do large scale destruction… yet; they do however have the cunning and patience to attack us where we are weakest, our civilian populace. Terrorists answer to no one and hence there are no checks and balances for use of terrible weapons or civil behavior.

Terrorists attack from within; they infiltrate free countries and kill our families. They will use whatever methods they have access to from pipe bombs to dirty nukes the higher the civilian body count the better.

Our cold war enemies were not this ruthless, they did infiltrate our country from time to time but their targets were military secrets not the destruction of our civilian populace.(at least not directly) Also because everyone knew the inevitable outcome of a nuclear exchange, there was a real deterrent for use of such weaponry.

The terrorists do not have any such restrictions; they know if they set off a dirty nuke in Washington DC, that because they do not represent a specific country we cannot legally retaliate in kind. We might anyway, but that would clearly not be legal, unless we could show that a certain country supplied the nuke or some other material support.

To sum up, terrorists are motivated to do us harm, they have no restrictions on their behavior, they attack from within, they represent no specific country or regime and they are willing to give their lives to kill as many of us as possible. This makes them a formidable and direct threat, not just a background villain.

Later

GOD defiles Reason

The Soviets had thousands upon thousands of nuclear weapons aimed right at us. Al Qaeda doesn't even compare to that, if we're to look at the measure of harm that can be done to us by the two.

I think the combination of 1) our dependency on oil 2) American political punditry 3) the cowardice of our elected officials 4) and our own religious fanaticism constitutes a greater threat to American lives than the threat posed by al Qaeda.

Frank 013

[GDR: The Soviets had thousands upon thousands of nuclear weapons aimed right at us. Al Qaeda doesn't even compare to that, if we're to look at the measure of harm that can be done to us by the two.]

This is true, but with the Soviet Union the ability to do us harm and the justification to do us harm were for the most part widely separated, in addition they knew that the destruction would be equally horrifying for them.

The capacity to harm us and the will to do so are very different.

With Al Qaeda the justification is there, they only seek the ability, they have already shown us that they can and will kill us when we give them the chance, so if they can get their hands on something nasty we could be hit again possibly much worse.

Simply put The Soviets were a possible threat, with the very real ability to harm us. If we forced them they would have attacked.

Al Qaeda is a proven threat they lack the capacity to do wide spread damage, but they are just waiting for the opening to do us great harm.

Can they render our country crippled with a single attack, you bet they could. With our new technology dependant so much on electric power, computers being used for information transfer, our economy and finances moving through these same sources, our infrastructure is very vulnerable. Just look at the problems caused by a simple power disruption in New York and the surrounding areas a couple of years ago, the effects of destroying a single city like New Orleans, a dirty nuke or bio weapon detonation in a civilized area would cause similar problems but with a much broader effect. How about an EMP attack centered on several key power installations around the country, this would be crippling to our country in many ways.

[GDR: I think the combination of 1) our dependency on oil 2) American political punditry 3) the cowardice of our elected officials 4) and our own religious fanaticism constitutes a greater threat to American lives than the threat posed by al Qaeda.]

I don’t disagree with any particular point made here, but it does not say anything about the capability of Al Qaeda's ability to attack and harm us.

Later

GOD defiles Reason

Frank: With Al Qaeda the justification is there,...

In your view, what is that justification?

I don’t disagree with any particular point made here, but it does not say anything about the capability of Al Qaeda's ability to attack and harm us.

No. No, it doesn't. But it does say that Americans can get just as many Americans killed as al Qaeda.

Frank 013

[GDR: In your view, what is that justification?]

Well lest see, according to Al Qaeda, because we are not good Muslims, the Crusades, their failure to further their agenda, the west’s perceived superiority, our presence on Muslim soil, bad cartoons, the color of grass, parking tickets, and if these don’t fit the bill they will find others.

[GDR: But it does say that Americans can get just as many Americans killed as al Qaeda.]

Of course, humans in general and Americans in particular are masters of self destruction.

Later

GOD defiles Reason

[GDR: In your view, what is that justification?]

Frank: Well lest see, according to Al Qaeda, because we are not good Muslims, the Crusades, their failure to further their agenda, the west’s perceived superiority, our presence on Muslim soil, bad cartoons, the color of grass, parking tickets, and if these don’t fit the bill they will find others.

Really? Where did you get that information?

Frank 013

[GDR: Really? Where did you get that information?]

Well aside from the bad cartoons which we are all seeing the results of right now. And the silly remarks about the grass and parking tickets, I found the others on a web site that addressed the Muslim hate machine; much was taken directly from the statements made by such people, and psychoanalysis of their need for hatred to maintain control. It talked about their reasoning for attacks being conjured up just to have a purpose to continue the line of hatred. I will see if I can dig it up for you.

Later

Frank 013

[GDR: Where did you get that information?]

Check out nobeliefs.com for starters, at the bottom of the home page look for the problems with Islam link, I think you will find it interesting.

Later

GOD defiles Reason

Well, okay. I happen to like NoBeliefs.com. But there are lots of articles there, and they're written by several different people. Most importantly, they're not written by Frank. am I having a discussion with NoBeliefs.com or with Frank?

It also seems to me that this is one of the problems with political discourse. People seem to be arguing the viewpoint of the others (their pundit heroes, favorite blogs, politicians, etc.) rather than arriving to a rational conclusion on their own and arguing their point from there.

What do you think, Frank? And how did you arrive at that opinion?

Frank 013

[GDR: Our weapons cause terror when they are used no matter what our politicians say "our intentions" are. "Shock and Awe" was an act of terror. Breaking into people's homes and humiliating a father in front of his children is an act of terror. We design weaponry with the purpose of terrorizing our enemy into not fighting. Using weapons of terror on anyone is an act of terror.]

Hey, that’s war. Any weapon capable of killing multiple persons while making a loud bang is horrifying.

[GDR: We say we don't intend to kill civilians, but how many Iraqi civilians has America killed? Compare that to how many American civilians have the Iraqis killed?]

We brought the war to their soil it is to be expected even if it is not wanted. Besides the insurgents are rapidly increasing their civilian death count and will soon surpass ours, yet they are not being turned in, or even demonstrated against by Muslims in Iraq or anywhere else. In fact as long as they restrict their attacks to Americans and collation forces the Arab nations as a whole including Iraq would support the action.

[GDR: Economic warfare hurt the lower classes of people first. That resulted in a great number of Iraqis dying and suffering needlessly. Our decade long economic sanctions on Iraq amount to an act of terror.]

True, but these sanctions are the primary way to recoup wrongs made by an offending country. Sanctions were made to work on the leaders of countries by putting stress on their populace and encouraging the leaders to do what is right, the problem surfaces when the leaders don’t give 2 cents for the people they represent.

[GDR: So there are times that I don't even agree with the premise that we don't intend to kill civilians.]

I will agree that most of our leaders do not for the most part care about the civilians killed in an attack, but the people on the ground have a duty to keep a watch on such things. Our military commanders are held accountable for actions that are as indiscriminate as you make them sound. (They are supposed to be anyway)

[GDR: We, as a country, in our short history, have been just as brutal as most empires that have come before us.]

Yep, it is a violent world and we had better be able to handle ourselves in it.

[GDR: But, Frank, I think you realize how their families probably felt about it.]

Not at the time.

[GDR: And I think you realize how that shit can be used against us.]

Yes, but I never thought the people we were defending would use it like that, but they did. (Lesson learned)

[GDR: I think we should have something like a Secretary of History whose purpose is to bring a greater sense of historic significance to the foreign policy making table.]

People often discount the importance of history, its sad that we can be so short sited and ignorant of the persistent makeup of human nature.

[GDR: I remember thinking: "Hmmm. 48 hours to leave your country. That's two days. Two days for the president of a country to pack his shit, with his belongings scattered in several different house across the country. He's going to have to look for a place to stay.]

Funny, I remember thinking; wow this guy can move whole battalions into civilian neighborhoods, he can get his artillery into alleyways next to schools and hospitals, but he can’t get his own stuff packed and at least make an honest showing that he intended to leave? All he needed was to show that he was making a sincere attempt; this would have been enough to stall us for some more time.

[GDR: But although it is true that there were Arabs dancing in the streets after 9/11, there were also Arabs and Muslims carrying signs in support of the US, and denouncing al Qaeda as being their representative of Islam.]

This is true but they never seemed to be as loud or as convincing as the hateful ones. The Muslim US supporters also never did anything to show us that they actually cared. Waving sings aside, the Muslim community has been negligent in its peace loving ideals; they refuse to clean up their own house, and until they do, it will appear to the rest of us that they as a whole support the terrorists through both action and inaction.

[GDR: I think it should have been done in a diplomatic capacity, with measured military responses as opposed to a military invasion.]

So do I… now.

The problem is that that was not possible at the time.

On 9/11 a sleeping dragon had been awakened and it was intent on vengeance. Everyone in this country was pissed off, from the president right down to me and my neighbor, a measured response was not a realistic possibility, emotions had been forced out and anything less that a full scale action would have been met with cries of “when will justice be done”. Did Saddam’s forces really pose a threat? No, but we were not sure at the time and we were hot for blood, any scapegoat would do to quench our blood lust.

Now our consciousnesses have caught up with us, and it is easier for us to blame our leaders than to admit we wanted this in the first place. Americans want to believe that we are more civilized than other people and that only through the deceit of a villainous leader would we be part of something so horrible. We are masters of passing the buck, and now we have done something so terrible that we must displace the blame, Americans are just not used to bearing the guilt.

Later

GOD defiles Reason

Quote:
[GDR: I think it should have been done in a diplomatic capacity, with measured military responses as opposed to a military invasion.]

Frank: So do I… now.

The problem is that that was not possible at the time.

Yes, it was.

The bloodlust, the need for vengeance, the hatred for Saddam Hussein was manufactured and manipulated by our government and media. Working hand in hand like two lovers going off on a fishing trip.

In the context of 9/11, and the people who perpetrated that crime, Saddam Hussein never had to be mentioned.

Quote:
On 9/11 a sleeping dragon had been awakened and it was intent on vengeance. Everyone in this country was pissed off, from the president right down to me and my neighbor, a measured response was not a realistic possibility, emotions had been forced out and anything less that a full scale action would have been met with cries of “when will justice be done”. Did Saddam’s forces really pose a threat? No, but we were not sure at the time and we were hot for blood, any scapegoat would do to quench our blood lust.

Hence the ongoing struggle between fanaticism and reason.

If we have a president who wants to take his revenge out on Saddam Hussein because of something that al Qaeda did, then we have a real joke for a president.

Niall001

Frank

Quote:
Besides the insurgents are rapidly increasing their civilian death count and will soon surpass ours, yet they are not being turned in, or even demonstrated against by Muslims in Iraq or anywhere else.

What are you using to judge this? The last figures I got from the IBC Project (who admit that they underestimate coalition deaths) showed that the insurgents were well behind not only the allied forces but criminals also. I wasn't aware that there'd been such a rapid turn around. In fact, if you include the Iraqi army/police in the coalition forces (as most Iraqis would) if you can believe Tim Collins then the number of deaths that the coalition is responsible for is increasing.

Quote:
This is true but they never seemed to be as loud or as convincing as the hateful ones.

Mate, that's always the way it is. Ask any Arab and they'd say the same to you about the US. You think that the average Arab appreciates the strength of the US anti-war movement? No they think that the vast majority of you guys wanted to invade. All the information we ever get is filtered.

Quote:
On 9/11 a sleeping dragon had been awakened and it was intent on vengeance. Everyone in this country was pissed off, from the president right down to me and my neighbor, a measured response was not a realistic possibility, emotions had been forced out and anything less that a full scale action would have been met with cries of “when will justice be done”. Did Saddam’s forces really pose a threat? No, but we were not sure at the time and we were hot for blood, any scapegoat would do to quench our blood lust.

If that is true, I'd have hard time understanding how any American can still be pissed off with those country's that weren't drunk on bloodlust.

Quote:

Now our consciousnesses have caught up with us, and it is easier for us to blame our leaders than to admit we wanted this in the first place. Americans want to believe that we are more civilized than other people and that only through the deceit of a villainous leader would we be part of something so horrible. We are masters of passing the buck, and now we have done something so terrible that we must displace the blame, Americans are just not used to bearing the guilt.

Hold on, that doesn't ring true with me. I had many a pro-war American tell me that they supported the war simply because they believed Bush and co. when they said that they had reliable information that they couldn't share. The invasion of Iraq was planned for years before 9/11 and Bush used it as an excuse to invade.

The problem I had with so many people who supported the war was that they put blind faith in their leaders and ignored the available information.

Full of Porn*

http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com

Frank 013

[GDR: Yes, it was.]

No it wasn’t…

Sorry, I could not help myself. ::78

But really, if it had been a realistic possibility we would have offered it up and it would have been entertained. It wasn’t.

The fact that no one did these things meant that we were moving ahead emotionally and could not entertain such reasoning.

[GDR: the hatred for Saddam Hussein was manufactured and manipulated by our government and media. Working hand in hand like two lovers going off on a fishing trip.]

Really? Can you prove this or are you just saying what you believe? Because remember some of our intelligence came from sources outside of our own. In fact I saw some of those pictures when they were released, there were clearly pictures of chemical moving trucks and other suspicious hardware that could have been used to make chemical weapons. Saddam said he was not making chemical or biologic weapons, were we just supposed to believe him? Our inspectors were denied access to these same sites time and time again. What else would we think?

[GDR: If we have a president who wants to take his revenge out on Saddam Hussein because of something that al Qaeda did, then we have a real joke for a president.]

This has never been said or even hinted at as far as I know. The reasoning for the Iraqi invasion was done on its own merits even though they turned out to be false.

Think of it like this. We were really pissed off, the guys who pissed us off are no where to be found, then this guy shows up and he had pissed us off before and is doing it again. Already in a bad mood our response is that much stronger.

[Niall: What are you using to judge this? The last figures I got from the IBC Project (who admit that they underestimate coalition deaths) showed that the insurgents were well behind not only the allied forces but criminals also.]

The American caused civilian body count has dropped to nearly zero at this point; the insurgents are killing civilians in the numbers of dozens per week, sometimes more.

At this point, American and coalition caused deaths in Iraq only add up to 37% of the total, this includes the invasion. Most of the killing these days is from crime (Iraqis killing Iraqis) or the insurgency I suspect these numbers get mixed up very often. If we do not pull out soon it is just a matter of time before the insurgency catches up.

[Niall: Mate, that's always the way it is. Ask any Arab and they'd say the same to you about the US. You think that the average Arab appreciates the strength of the US anti-war movement? No they think that the vast majority of you guys wanted to invade. All the information we ever get is filtered.]

I am well aware of this, but it is still very clear that the Muslim community does not have an


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT