Of course not- they acted as any prison guards would. I distinguish between acts of a police force against their own people vs. opposing armies trading shots.
Well, since you apparently find yourself unable to exert enough self-control to do anything except hurl insults, I respectfully suggest that you exit this thread and let the others here carry on their discussion.
After just posting in the “SDMB - Fair and Balanced?” thread, I feel compelled to cross-reference this with that thread, in terms of the charge that liberals are unfair and abusive assholes in Great Debates. As in that thread, I await the conservatives’ efforts here to take Lonesome Polecat to task. Failing that, I submit that his tactics reflect a fairly common conservative practice here.
Yuppeee! I do love an invitation. Let’s.
:::: sidestepping the healthy dose of ad-hominens contained above:::::
Indeed they do know that. Historically, all insurgents have to do is resist the occuppiers. Sooner or later, the invaders realize that theirs is an unsustainable effort – just recently, historically speaking, we saw how long term military occupation devoid of a clear political goal and an exit strategy coupled with the crippling costs both in blood and economic terms, brought he world’s two biggest empires, the US and the ex-USSR to their knees in Vietman and Afghanistan respectively. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Oh, and BTW, please provide a cite that supports your assertion about a “vast majority of Iraqis, including Sunnies” wanting the insurgents to lose. If you mean, as I suspect you do, they wanting peace as opposed to what they have now, sure, no doubt. But I submit to you that they shall not have it for as long as your troops remain there.
Nope, nope, afraid it’s not that easy. Just because your Dear Misleader says so, it does not make it so. Fact of the matter is that there are any number of factions to the resistance movement in Iraq and about the only thing they have in common is their desire to see your country off of theirs. Yes, many of their actions fit into the common definition of terrorism, but I’d argue – and do – that so do many of the ones undertaken by your own Goverment, starting with the very campaign of Shock and Awe that started the hostilities. Despite the constant protestations from your side, there’s no distinct “moral superiority” between the warring factions involved in this conflict – each one is simply using the methods available to them to suit their purposes. A bomb, dropped from 20,000 ft, is just as deadly and often more so, than one exploded from a car at ground level. You can make all the “collateral damage justifications” you’d like, but dead is dead. And no side has killed more innocent Iraqis in this conflict than yours.
.
I am. Read an NYT article stating as much. So what? I’m not the one claiming the insurgents fit into one of those neat little categories your Misleader created for them. YOU are.
Clearly there are many different agendas and power struggles between them. Never said otherwise. Doesn’t make them any less formidable than your own shattering coalition has made you.
Again, I don’t personally approve of any method that kills innocent civilians, however, I support the right of citizen to take arms in the face of an occupying force.
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, the “Islamic Fascists” had little to nothing to do with Iraq prior to your illegal attack. Your point? Seriously, this is what you call a “an invitation to the fact-based world”?
Pass the Kool-Aid.
Moderator’s Note: LonesomePolecat, you have been on these boards long enough to know not to call other posters “quislings and eunuchs” in Great Debates. If you can’t restrain yourself in political discussions, then you need to confine your participation in political discussions to those threads which are opened in the Pit.
Don’t worry. Any ideas we come up have already also been thought of by Al Qaeda.
This joke was mildly amusing the first three thousand times. Now it’s just stale. The Op asked a serious question, which deserves serious consideration, not snarky one upmanship between prop and anti Bush crowds. Yes the OP should have said “Al Qaeda” and not the vague “the terrorists.” And yes the OP contained some unfortunate “Liberals are enabling terrorists” snark of it’s own. But if we abandoned the snark we could have a real discussion on a serious topic.
I was referring more to the knee jerk domestic responses like that inane color code and the asinine airport security most of us have stories about.
Seriously, it would not be that hard to think of realistic counter-terror strategies.
1.) Make a real effort to secure loose nukes. It would be very difficult for terrorists to build an atom bomb. One might even say impossible. But there are plenty of stray nukes around the FSU. We should be making far more of an effort to secure these than we are doing. We need to be making a real effort to work with Putin on this. If that means ignoring his authoritarianism or even resorting to outright bribery, so be it.
2.) Drastically reform the FBI, and/or create a real counter terrorism agency. Seethis article. The FBI is not set up for the long term intelligence gathering and counter terror. It also has a recent history that is checkered at best. A working FBI would have investigated Colleen Rowley’s alarms immediately and could probably have prevented the 9/11 attacks.
There were two major attempts at mass terror attacks against the U.S. between the first WTC attack and 9/11 : Bojinka and the Millennium Plot. These were foiled by an alert Filipino policewoman and an alert customs official on the Canadian border. That’s what saved us, those two people, not all our vast federal law enforcement apparatus. American’s are simply not enraged enough at the inefficiency, CYA attitude, and plain ole incompetence of the FBI. (Note: I do not mean to slander all FBI personnell. Many field agents are brave, competent, and hard-working. The aforementioned Colleen Rowley, for one. It is rather the organization and the upper echelons I’m complaining about.)
3.) Be Brave. Sound trite but this is something we can all do as Americans. The world is full of dangers, besides terrorism. While fighting against terror we should not create such a level of highly visible cosmetic security measures which make us feel more secure while actually increasing security. At best these measures are aggravating, as anyone whose flown can attest. At worst they cause serious damage to the economy. Al Qaeda knows this.
4.) Hearts and Minds. Karl Rove can bash me for a tree hugging terrorist enabling hippie liberal if he wants, but the fact is as long as vast portions of the Islamic world despise us and our policies, Al qaeda will always have personell, money, and safe havens. Winning the Islamic world over will be hard work, especially with this ill-concieved poorly planned occupation we are currently engaged in, but it is absolutely vital.
5.) Overthrow the Taliban. We already did this. The one thing GW got right.
As for the flypaper strategy, that’s ridiculous. AQ is not a kitten, who can be distracted by a nearby piece of string. They certainly enjoy sending fighters into Iraq to kill Americans and make us look foolish, but do not for a second think that this means they have forgotten about their goal of another attack here. The fighters in Iraq are lower echelon AQ terrorists. Their best guys are being saved for attacks in the U.S. They are probably already here.
The next attack will probably be carried out by persons of non-Arabic descent. Asians, most likely, but possibly Caucasians. Railways and/or shopping malls will be likely targets.
By the way the above ideas are not mine but are cribbed from recent Atlantic articles by James Fallows and Richard Clarke. They’re probably available on the website archives. It’s a pay site(free to subscribers), but well worth it.
I thought about that thread as well earlier this morning, Hentor. To counter your point a bit, in post 21 of this very thread you yourself referred to my statements as “silliness”, “Illogical” and “ill-founded”. In post 38, Latro referred to one of my points as “delusional”. Red Fury’s posts to me have been sarcastic and confrontational with very little added to the actual discussion. Elucidators post 47 was mockingly sarcastic from beginning to end.
I use sarcasm myself and I directly addressed Latro himslef rather than his ideas in post 40. It just seems to be the way the board is going these days. Sometimes it’s hard to resist the low road…but the low road is not the exclusive residence of one particular political ideology.
There is a difference in my book between attacking another persons statements, which you clearly understand was what I did, and suggesting that other posters are contemptible, or the childish namecalling that he just was cited by a moderator for.
I reserve the right to reply with a charge of “Silliness!” to any assertion that my opposition of Bush is aiding, emboldening, or otherwise furthering the efforts of terrorists.
Despite the lightness of the tone put forth, it wasn’t a joke. For I consider many of the practices engaged in in Iraq by American forces nothing short of State-sponsored terrorism.
Shock and Awe and the razing of Fallujah for starters.
I didn’t want to come down all schoolmarmish. It’s just that the OP was asking what will Al Qaeda’s next move be, which is an interesting and important topic. If someone wants to start an “Is George Bush a terrorist” thread, go for it I guess, though this probably isn’t the best forum for that. Nor would such a thread be particularly enlightening, IMO.
umm, well, there was this election, you see. And millions of Iraqis risked their lives to participate in this new and unfamilar process. In the Western democracies, people arent willing to risk anything-(not even getting wet) to participate.(if it rains on election day, people stay home.)Would you go to your neighborhood ballot station if someone threatened to kill you? I wouldn’t—but millions of Iraqis are braver than me.Yes, they want the insurgents to lose …that’s why they risked getting killed at the voting booth–to elect leaders who are NOT insurgents.
Umm,…well,…there is this concept of a target. A bomb dropped on a military base is not morally equivalent to a car bomb in a crowded marketplace.
If the occupying force is like the Germans occupying France, intending to subdue the conquered land forever and prevent the locals from controlling their own lives, you may be right. But if the occupying force encourages the local people to hold free elections and govern themselves , maybe the people taking up arms are well,…umm…a bit less justified.
No problem on my end over your tone. However, I’ll note that the OP does no such thing – there’s not a single mention of AQ in it.
You’re right. Mainstream America is just beginning to come to terms with the post 9/11 emotional manipulation this Administration put them through – way too much to ask at present time that they also recognize their CIC could/should be tried for war crimes.
Even if the Administration itself was aware that their behavior – at least in one instance – was at best, borderline.
All in due time. I’m an old and pacient man.
Explain it to them. The ones that are left alive anyway.
(Warning: graphic link to results of of dropping bombs on presumed “military base”)
Perhaps. Who’s judgement is that to make, do you think? May the occupying force determine on its own that its motives are good and honest, and then enforce its judgement with deadly force?
Ever stop to consider that a great majority of those Iraqis that voted did so for the Parties that promised to end the American occupation? No? Didn’t think so.
Welcome to reality – your worst nightmare.
Well thanks to our foreign policy the extreme Islamic agenda is more to the center now. People like to think that the suicide bombers are going to run out someday. I would say that this is extremely short-sighted . (Apparently a joke but I’m not laughing and I have seen serious Palestinians dancing with babies dressed up like this on the news.)
Actually, I agree with the other posters and have some other ideas:
1. That the terrorists do nothing different from what they are doing. Time is on their side. Once the U.S. leaves, the insurgence will be there and will spread to Saudi Arabia. Does anyone know how much of the population is Saudi as compared to foreign? The insurgents are fighting a classic guerilla war. They have a support base amongst the population. Those who don’t support them are afraid to stand against them being that although we are not incurring casualties we are mostly behind secured areas. Perfect set up for a guerilla war which will wither when the guerillas lose support amongst the masses.
**2. Infiltrate the Iraqi security forces. **It is hard for me to imagine that these forces are not rife with insurgents waiting for the perfect time to strike. How are we to tell where their ideological sympathies lie? We simply don’t.
**3. Engage in skirmishing to learn from the enemy. **Simply put, they are growing stronger while we are not. We are not growing at all but are probably getting weaker. The insurgent has more to learn but his learning curve will be greater. The insurgent will quickly approach our level of fighting ability very quickly and much faster then we will learn from fighting them.
Our problem is that the borders are porous. We cannot invade the neighboring countries because we are stretched too thin and WWIII is looming if we do. Our citizens do not want us to incur casualties on a trumped up war so we must preserve our forces. This means that they cannot mix it up with the enemy like they should. We can spring from the fortified areas when we feel the insurgents are strong in an area but this usually does work very well because they melt back into the population.
Needless to say this is an incredibly complex war. In my opinion, it’s not worth it.