Maybe I’ve read too many articles on al Qaeda from too many sources – especially Usama’s actual words – to take any wacky conspiracy site that blames 9/11 on Richard Pearle because they used a “Pearl Harbor” analogy in a terror report. We had already suffered significant terror attacks on major US interests at that point. Only a casual observer would think that this required significant psychic powers or a conspiracy.
Guess what, many of us psychics saw a terrorist “Pearl Harbor” coming. The attacks were getting more brazen and bigger. The news reports coming out of the Islamic world suggested the Usama was swaggering and suggesting that the US was a paper tiger. From Saudi to the Phillipines recruits were flowing into terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. This did not start under GWB or the CIA. NO, it was al -fucking -Qaeda.
Stupid nursery rhyme type criticism and too-many-caps conspiracy sites with little in the way of argumentation aren’t impressive.
Yes, I started the name-calling – NOT. It’s perfectly legitimate to manufacture stupid amateur psychologocal profiles of your political opponents. It’s even better than a strawman argument, it’s a strawman psychology.
“If you oppose me, you manufacture enemies in your head.”
Actually, due to my dexterity with a keyboard and basic mastery of the English language, I am able to determine exactly what al Qaeda wants to do, and where with great precision. Why, oh great liberal savants?, THEY TELL YOU!
I saw no attacks on conservatives in this thread prior to your attack on liberals, so as far as this particular debate is concerned, yes, you did. A conspiracy theorist in my opinion is not a political opponent. Liberals and conservatives might be political opponents. But most anybody would classify me as a liberal and I find this conspiracy stuff as ridiculous as you do, it’s clearly not a liberal vs. conservative thing.-
By Wake Up Call: " It was in mid 80s that Ronald Reagan and Casper Weinberger bamboozled the American public by instilling fear of the “Soviet Threat” to justify the need for higher military budgets. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union collapsed mainly due to its own internal problems. We later found that there was really no threat to the US in the 80s. "
Instilled fear? A justifiable concern about the Soviet Union’s capabilities and intentions had been there since Stalin.
By Wake Up Call: "I don’t know about pre 80s, but during the Reagan administration, the Soviet Union was so caught up in the Afghan Quagmire that I doubt if they could expand anywhere before their downfall. "
The whole Soviet thing was developmental, over decades. If you “don’t know about pre 80’s”, you don’t understand the situation well enough to comment. I’d suggest some history courses at a nearby college or university before you get too far into things you don’t understand.
By Wake Up Call: “I don’t know. Didn’t we go to Vietnam to find the answer? But in any case, do you believe Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaida are the bogeymen that are raping our treasury, leaving us without a decent health care or a livable pension systems?”
I never claimed those things. They are costing us money, but in the end we’ll get rid of Al Qaeda , and it will have been money well spent.
So no, I don’t think we’re being bamboozled.
Thanks to Beagle for doing most of my dirty work here.
I have to take issue with that statement. There is no guarantee that Al Qaeda can be wiped out with military action. The history of fighting terrorist groups suggests this strongly. Sure, you can do a lot of damage to them militarily, but how do you go about stopping a shadowy, global organisation with strong ties to Islamic fundmentalism, giving them access to a large pool of potential recruits?
I’d be suprised if Al Qaeda or an offshoot aren’t still active in 25 years time. And remember, I belive the threat they pose is generally exaggerated.
The military action in Afganistan removed a regime that supported Al Qaeda, and the action in Iraq sends out a strong message to other regimes that supporting terrorist groups will not be tolerated. But the military action also makes it easier for Al Qaeda to recruit.
A solution to the Palestinian problem would probably damage Al Qaeda’s cause at least as much as military action.
By Uncivil: “A solution to the Palestinian problem would probably damage Al Qaeda’s cause at least as much as military action.”
Agreed!
I think that if enough resources and time are expended, military action aside, we can dry up their sources of finacncing and other support. This is what I HOPE, anyway.
And yet, despite all this obvious clairvoyance, when the outgoing Clinton Administration warned the incoming Bush Administration that terrorism and al Qaeda would be a dominant issue for George, the Bushies ignored the issue (PDF) and did nothing to prevent an attack. Heck, on 9/10/2001, Ashcroft sent his Justice Department budget request to Bush, and of the 68 programs slated for spending increases, none of them dealt with terrorism – it didn’t even make his top seven priorities.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to speculate that, if you were warned that terrorist attacks will be on the increase, and you wanted a “Pearl Harbor”-type event, a viable solution would be to just sit on your thumbs and wait for something to happen…
Before 9/11 tere was a woman missing who was involved with some congressman. I don’t even remember her name. I think I heard her body was found. This missing woman was all over the news, multiple channels, for weeks. I was asking myself why this woman was so important to get this much attention.
I think we have a PANIC ON TERRORISM. How much is blown out of proportion by the media and how much by the administration I can’t tell. 4.5 MILLION Americans have died since 9/11. That is normal. Telling everyone that would show how small a deal 9/11 was.
What about those Arab terrorists that tried the kamakaze airliner trick in 1994? Why isn’t the media all over the FAA about that?
Chandra Levy was all over the news because it combined a couple of different elements to make for really shocking coverage. Not only was she suddenly missing, she had had an affair with a congressman, and wags thought it looked like he might’ve had her killed. His initial refusal to talk to police about her furthered that. That was all totally false, as it turned out. I have no idea what this has to do with terrorism.
True, up until 1970s. After that, Soviet Union started going downhill towards collapse. There was no more justifiable concern in the 80s. However, our administration kept on instilling fear by trumpeting “The Soviet Threat”.
.
Oh yes, I can also go and study pre 1991 Iraq. But history courses on that would not explain why the Bush Administration used the “WMD Threat” in 2003 to justify invading Iraq, only to find out later that there was no WMD in Iraq. If you don’t feel bamboozled, what can I say.
Oh, I wouldn’t bet on that one. As Uncivil said in his post above: “I’d be surprised if Al Qaeda or an offshoot aren’t still active in 25 years time”. Fighting terrorism worldwide can be an endless pit unless we start addressing the central issues, the US role, and the root causes behind the formation and existence of such organized groups.
I provided 4 cites to support my arguments regarding the main reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 80s. All Beagle did was to pull, out of context, a sentence from one of the cites, which was not the main reason. I am afraid you either have to take some courses at a nearby college or start doing your own “dirty work”.
Remember again, the OP is asking if we are being bamboozled just as we were in the 1980s. The OP is not going back to the time of Stalin or Kruschev. Please stay focused.
I’ve read the whole thread, Beagle. You’ve either missed or are ignoring my point. I don’t care if you caricature the people you’re talking about. I’m annoyed if you insist that all liberals share in the extreme fringe opinion of the conspiracy theorists.
rjung, didn’t you get the memo? The new stance is that al Qaeda is an invention of the right wing (see above), and now you come in here and talk about how Bill Clinton knew all about them and what they were going to do…
You are debating in a zone far from reality. I read the posts, quote or paraphrase them, and respond. If you seriously cannot figure out what I’m writing about, you are in a river, and it’s called denial.
Wake Up Call, please read your own sources.
Whatever one might think about any of these issues, to simplify them – ignore posts completely – not read your own sources – and to make statements about conservatives imagining false enemies is really pretty silly.
I thought McCarthy was a nut until I met the new left witch hunters.
“He doesn’t like Communism, MCCARTHY FASCIST!, BURN HIM!”
The Cold War was very complex. There were proxy wars, actual wars, constant overflights of the Soviet Union (had to, couldn’t sent tourists like they could), flights near the US, Soviet pilots in Korea and Vietnam, US pilots conducting “weather reconaissance” all around sensitive new Soviet missile and radar sites (hundreds died due to “pilot error” – not dodging bullets or missiles), satellite spying, real spying, assasinations, plots to overthrow governments, plots to maintain governments, plots to maintain the government that overthrows the government that overthrows…eh, arms sales, fully funded “popular rebellions” by both sides, near misses with actual nuclear exchanges for numerous reasons, brutally suppressed rebellions in Eastern Europe, and a huge offensively oriented army in East Germany. Sorry, but tanks are made for moving.
I could write another equally long paragraph. But, don’t take my word for it. These articles will help get you acquainted with nuclear politics.
First, once you get nuclear parity all you guarantee is MADness. Don’t think that prevents generals from scheming schemes to fight nuclear wars. The opposite is true. If two nations are at odds both militarily and philosophically – both with access to SLBMs, ICBMs, SRBMs, IRBMs, nuclear bombs, cruise missiles, Satan, briefcase bombs, and such – a climate of paranoia is not only natural, but wise, on both sides. It’s not like we were all pointing them at Luxembourg.
There was a “Fog of the Cold War” that seriously endangered all of us, on both sides – BUT MOSTLY THEIRS (seriously, read the article) Uncertainty is the mother of justifiable paranoia. The Soviet system sewed and harvested paranoia.
Search engine:
“Soviet first strike nuclear strategy” OR “any combination of words even close”
And if wake up call’s position is typical of liberals, I’ll stay there. Meanwhile, attack conspiracy theorists all you want, but I suggest you don’t bring me into it by talking about what ‘the liberals’ think. Do you think everyone posting on this thread against wake up call is a conservative?
By the way, congrats on a very original pun.
:eek: The category that just appeared on Jeopardy! is “Beagle-mania!”
IMHO, i think there is a small amount of bamboozling (sp?) going on with the terrorist threat. Tis the nature of the beast we live in. The media garners ratings and attention through it. The government can certainly use it to garner votes or attack opponents as being soft on terrorism and the like.
The terrorist threat is real, however nebulous it may be. Our current approach in fighting it is somewhat akin to ridding your house of cockroaches using a handgun, but try telling the general populace that. We have a government made of elected officials that would dearly like to keep their jobs and they really can’t do that by saying “Well, we can’t do a whole lot to prevent it. Just remember that most of you will not die in a terrorist attack.” Add in the omnipresent threat of law/class action suits… well, ya gotta try something.
Thanks Marley. I just don’t think it’s fair to claim that “conservatives” do anything in their heads. If you study history, and I can’t help it, that’s exactly what the Soviet “mental health care system” used to think. – I joke with terms, the logical conclusions and opposites of arguments, and spelling sometimes also – I don’t buy generalizations about liberals, that’s why I made a nice fat one that some people make exactly like the one I was fed in the first place. OTOH, it’s hard to carry the water in a debate if someone won’t read a link you labeled “Satan”. That outlines the entire Cold War dilemma from one perspective, based on one missile, in one article.
Is it comprehensive? No, that’s the point.
If you debate Communism, and my recent vanity searches indicate that I do, a lot, you run into what I’ve described as Beagle’s First Corollary to Godwin’s Law – substitute “McCarthy” for “Hitler”.
Here’s the deal, not all Communists agreed. Many did not want to risk thermonuclear armageddon. That is something that transcends political boundaries.
There was a “Communist THREAT” – period. The arms that REAGAN (specifically) proposed – that “liberals” specifically hated – DID have a MAJOR effect on the FALL of SOVIET Communism. How do I know this – the OPs sources.
Too TimeCubesque? I think so.
Anyway, where did that website go with Richard Perle and Pearl Harbor? I swear I saw that here. String theory again? If I didn’t see that here… Strange.
Is the United States a threat? If so, why? I’d guess it’s because we have tanks and nuclear missiles. Well, guess what, so did the Soviets – in numbers in East Germany. Russia would still be counted as “a threat” – but apples meet oranges.
Third Shock Army was a real threat. That site is provided my myself, like pictures of Dachau or Rwanda on a genocide topic, for people to consider exactly what the word “threat” means, if Third Shock Army is not included.
Seriously, ask the veterans of Third Shock Army, they would be offended to think that they were not a major threat. Same goes for the NATO pilots tasked with destroying them, and so on. It would have been a gigantic war. Most likely tens of millions would have died. Germany would have wished for the architectural renaissance of 1945 by comparison.
How many actual Soviet experts, afraid of their own (QUOTED) leadership, must I quote before you surrender, Wake up call? Just give me a number. Maybe you’ve noticed, I already have quite a few.
Frontline would be a good place to read about al Qaeda. You can’t accuse PBS of it being a conservative conspiracy.
Please, read the fatwas at least. This should explain why al Qaeda might be active in the US, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UK, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and just about anywhere there are like-minded extremists with a violent ideology.