If 9/11 was GW Bush's Fault...

[TheGaffer]

As for the performance of our regular troops in Iraq, that has been nothing short of outstanding! Try listening to what the returning troops are saying, instead of what some blogger is spinning. The one thing our troops can't do is make one Muslim love another.

That wasn't the point. The point was that we don't need to be there, period.

And read this and tell me if you believe resources weren't directed away from Afghanistan. The planning being done by military folk was sidelined in order to go into Iraq. I don't know how you can dispute that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...901105_pf.html

They have no interest in land or wealth, or power for the sake of power.

Well, actually, bin Laden has made it pretty clear that he is interested in power for the sake of power, and land as well. (Wealth I'm less sure about.) Indeed, of all the jihadist groups out there, bin Laden's cadre has larger ambitions than any of the others, but it seems pretty much based on the idea of just really f***ing up our lives a lot rather than "ruling" us.

All they want is our soul, and while some may be willing to give theirs up in exchange for a life of moral and social oppression, there are others who will not submit. Count me among the latter.

Who? Who has said they're "willing" to give up their souls in exchange for moral and social oppression? Who on this board has ever suggested that they would want their rule over our democracy?

You can call them terrorists, freedom fighters, patriots, insurgents, jihadists, radical Islamists, or anthing else you desire, but they are the same people; their goals remain the same, and no amount of appeasment, apology, tears or breast beating will deter them from their mission. Only total submission will satisfy them.

Again with the word "appeasement." What are we offering al-Qaeda? What deals are we offering them and in exchange for what? This historical analogy fails on almost every level.

[TheGaffer]

And, yes, they all hate Israel. But lumping them together in one vast ball of "terrorism" leads us to make stupid decisions about how to engage them, and I can't see where stupid decisions work to our benefit in any way.

Exactly. Furthermore, it leads to bad strategy. Dividing and conquering, or rather, dividing and isolating, would serve our goals better than conflating them into one gigantic festering sore that all acts in concert when in reality, most of them were not allies for one reason or another, and in fact many hated each other. Our best strategy in that regard would have been and is to exploit that hatred, and not to erroneously conflate these people into one group lest they unite in common cause against us.

[Bird of Prey]

Originally Posted by Unique

The first part of the article was interesting but their section on Taliban and women... I don't recall ever seeing such a whitewash in my entire life.
Makes the rest a little suspect.

I just try to keep to the facts. The Taliban's treatment of women is/was deplorable by any standard.

Anyway, the reason why I wanted you to take a look at it is because I think it's really important to understand that the factions we keep trying to address as one big terrorist movement aren't that at all. There's no love lost between the Taliban and Iran, for example. The Taliban is entirely different from say, Hamas.

In the languages spoken in Afghanistan and Northwestern Pakistan, (Persian and Pushtu), Taliban means "students". It is derived from the Arabic word for seeker or student, talib. Through certain Pakistani madrasahs, the Taliban may have also been influenced by the Deobandi School of thought which emphasizes piety, austerity, and the family obligations of men. They emerged from the ethnically Pashtun areas of Afghanistan. Many of the Taliban grew up in refugee camps in Pakistan.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

We gave a certain amount of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan under the Taliban rule, ostensibly to reward it for reducing the opium trade. I think it was SC that brought up the irony that opium production hit an all time high after its removal. Anyway, the Taliban would still be in power today had it not played a role in shielding bin Laden. And the Taliban itself had not overtly exported terrorism, rather abetted it by providing a haven for camps: a distinction as to how you referred to terrorism - exported - in a prior post. As you know, Clinton addressed the terror camps with bombing.

The Taliban arose out of the chaos that ensued prior to the Russian pull-out. Remember, we armed the insurgency against the Russians. But the poverty that followed was largely ignored, despite our prior military interest. So it took hold. Not good guys, but they were in Texas - as you saw - trying to negotiate a pipeline.

They are now with bin Ladin, or his remains, somewhere in the mountains. Although they are now cemented to Al Qaeda, there was a point where our bombing had created enough of a fissure that they offered him to a neutral country if we could "prove his guilt" and stop the bombing. Maybe it was bs, but what if we had opened the door to talk back then? Is it possible we may have had bin Laden via negotiation? I don't know. It's done now and we fight on to contain them. But the Taliban still wants control of Afghanistan, that's their motive. For awhile, bin Laden was perhaps a great warrior and "funder." But now that he's reached a staggering height by eluding us, he has managed to irreparably fuse the Taliban movement to his own.

[TheGaffer]

Good points, BoP. The main point, really, is that they've all got different ambitions -- one of Bush's smart moves (one of the few) was in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when he attempted to isolate the Taliban from Al Qaeda, by saying, "Give him up, and we go home." And they didn't, so both got their butts kicked, and b/c of their treatment of women and other reasons nobody was sorry to see their dumbasses thrown out.

[Unique]

Originally Posted by Bird of Prey

I just try to keep to the facts. The Taliban's treatment of women is/was deplorable by any standard.

Anyway, the reason why I wanted you to take a look at it is because I think it's really important to understand that the factions we keep trying to address as one big terrorist movement aren't that at all. There's no love lost between the Taliban and Iran, for example. The Taliban is entirely different from say, Hamas.

We gave a certain amount of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan under the Taliban rule, ostensibly to reward it for reducing the opium trade. I think it was SC that brought up the irony that opium production hit an all time high after its removal. Anyway, the Taliban would still be in power today had it not played a role in shielding bin Laden. And the Taliban itself had not overtly exported terrorism, rather abetted it by providing a haven for camps: a distinction as to how you referred to terrorism - exported - in a prior post. As you know, Clinton addressed the terror camps with bombing.

The Taliban arose out of the chaos that ensued prior to the Russian pull-out. .

I didn't quote you in your entirety in order to save space.

I followed some of the links that were named as sources. Many of them were from 2001. I wish there had been more describing conditions now. It would help to determine whether this campaign had acheived any good.

There is no doubt in my mind that Western interference, greed, and general disregard for anything other than their own needs and agenda has contributed to much of the problem.

Paying them not to grow opium is just stupidity. There are legitimate uses for it and it would have been smarter to just buy their crop.

BBL. I'm interested in seeing some serious debate here. Keep it on the rails.

[SC Harrison]

Originally Posted by Unique

Paying them not to grow opium is just stupidity. There are legitimate uses for it and it would have been smarter to just buy their crop.

When I posted the thread about poppy production increases, I did some digging to see if legitimate pharmaceutical uses could absorb some/much of the production and keep revenue flowing in (to the right people).

It looks like India and South America currently have a grip on that market, and keep their growth limited to discourage illegal sales. There is a growing movement that wishes to allow opiates to be used more freely for OTC cold remedies and other liberal uses. If this movement succeeds, much of Afghanistan's poppy output could be legitimized, but there is also a movement to keep this from happening.

[ColoradoGuy]

Originally Posted by SC Harrison

When I posted the thread about poppy production increases, I did some digging to see if legitimate pharmaceutical uses could absorb some/much of the production and keep revenue flowing in (to the right people) . . .
There is a growing movement that wishes to allow opiates to be used more freely for OTC cold remedies and other liberal uses. If this movement succeeds, much of Afghanistan's poppy output could be legitimized, but there is also a movement to keep this from happening.

At least in this country, although morphine is still the king, many of the medically-used opioid drugs are synthetic ones -- not made from poppies. There are a variety of reasons for this, but I doubt that we could absorb increased morphine production from opium into medical practice. It is my understanding that most of the opium used legally is processed into codeine, rather than morphine. Codeine was once widely available in over-the-counter cold remedies.

[robeiae]

Originally Posted by ColoradoGuy

Codeine was once widely available in over-the-counter cold remedies.

*sigh*

I miss those days...you could sleep like a log when you were sick.

[Unique]

Originally Posted by robeiae

*sigh*

I miss those days...you could sleep like a log when you were sick.

And gee, maybe even stop coughing. What a concept!

[blacbird]

Originally Posted by Unique

Paying them not to grow opium is just stupidity. There are legitimate uses for it and it would have been smarter to just buy their crop.

Not in the quantities that would be produced. Same argument can be made for coca. But how you would enforce the non-growing of these things is a big question mark for me, given the pervasiveness of the black market for them.

caw.

[blacbird]

Originally Posted by TheGaffer

not to erroneously conflate these people into one group lest they unite in common cause against us.

Pretty much what they're now doing.

caw.

[Unique]

Originally Posted by blacbird

Not in the quantities that would be produced. Same argument can be made for coca. But how you would enforce the non-growing of these things is a big question mark for me, given the pervasiveness of the black market for them.

caw.

Sure thing - but if you bought them and destroyed them what's the difference between that and just handing out money for the promise of not growing them? See?

They still grow them but then the buyer determines where they end up. Much smarter maneuver if you really want to control the drug trade.

[gromhard]

Originally Posted by TheGaffer

That wasn't the point. The point was that we don't need to be there, period.

Well you obviously don't see the value of having our richest Americans make a lot off of a pipeline running through Afghanistan. Jeez, Gaffer, you just don't get it. Making the oil companies richer makes us ALL safer...DUH!

And read this and tell me if you believe resources weren't directed away from Afghanistan. The planning being done by military folk was sidelined in order to go into Iraq. I don't know how you can dispute that.

What? The pipeline went bust and Halliburton needed to eat. How can you EXPECT the US not to go to war with Iraq??? I suppose you'd just let all those lucrative opportunies for KBR and Carslyle go to waste. How can you expect Blackwater and Boeing execs to buy their little girls pony stables if we didn't make Iraq into a perpetual warzone. What do you have against business gaffer? Are you a commie?!
"Yeah, let's not fight any wars or kill innocent people." We TRIED THAT, it DIDN'T work.

Well, actually, bin Laden has made it pretty clear that he is interested in power for the sake of power, and land as well. (Wealth I'm less sure about.) Indeed, of all the jihadist groups out there, bin Laden's cadre has larger ambitions than any of the others, but it seems pretty much based on the idea of just really f***ing up our lives a lot rather than "ruling" us.

Why do you hate America Gaffer?

Who? Who has said they're "willing" to give up their souls in exchange for moral and social oppression? Who on this board has ever suggested that they would want their rule over our democracy?

Are you kidding?! Over 51% of the population voted for John Kerry! Everyone KNOWS he'd flip flop and hand the country over to the Taliban...if Bush hadn't disenfranchised those "young bucks" then we'd ALL be facing Mecca right now.

Again with the word "appeasement." What are we offering al-Qaeda? What deals are we offering them and in exchange for what? This historical analogy fails on almost every level.

Michael Moore and Ted Kennedy proposed a bill where we'd all have to perform oral sex on a Muslim to keep them from attacking again. Luckily for us there is a Republican Congress so the bill fell flat. If that's not appeasement, I don't know what is!


NeoGrom

[gromhard]

In all seriousness there were a few points I wanted to comment on.

Originally Posted by TheGaffer

Well, actually, bin Laden has made it pretty clear that he is interested in power for the sake of power, and land as well. (Wealth I'm less sure about.) Indeed, of all the jihadist groups out there, bin Laden's cadre has larger ambitions than any of the others, but it seems pretty much based on the idea of just really f***ing up our lives a lot rather than "ruling" us.

I am not sure I have the same understanding of Bin Laden/Al Qaeda.
But Bin Laden's not after land or money. Wahabism controls Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden is an EXTREMELY rich man, he doesn't need land or money.

He doesn't care about "F'ing up Gaffer's life." First and foremost.
HOWEVER f'ing up Gaffer's life does serve his purpose.
His purpose? Arabian power. As with any religious fundamentalist movement they're not about converting Westerners or taking over our lands.
They simply want to unite the rest of the Muslims under Bin Laden's sect of fanatical Wahabism. When they blow up Americans or when Americans blow up Arabs their cause is served...both ways. But it's not just Americans al-Q attacks. Russian, Pakhi, Spanish, ect, ect.
Bin Laden is just an international salesman for fanatical Wahabism however what it appears like to middle easterns is that this old, scraggly Middle Eastern guy has taken on the greatest military for 5 years and defeated us in Iraq. (incidentally the reason why bush says we can't leave iraq, because Al-Qaeda would view it as a victory)

[TheGaffer]

They simply want to unite the rest of the Muslims under Bin Laden's sect of fanatical Wahabism.

Yeah. But in order to do that, you have to control a whole lot of land. Hence my point, that to say he's not interested in land is a bit of a falsehood.

[robeiae]

OBL is just another in a long list...he wants power. End of story. Hell, everybody wants power in some fashion or another (and anyone who says they don't is full of it, imo), OBL is just one of those wonderful ones who not only doesn't care how he gets that power, but actually has potentially successful methodology for attaining it. Nevermind that he might be dead the day after he actually achieved his goals--that's beside the point.

[TheGaffer]

and anyone who says they don't is full of it, imo

I'm pretty sure Pee-Wee Herman does not want power.

[veinglory]

Hmmm. Bin Laden hasn't been a rich man for a very long time. After being cut off and his accounts mostly forzen he probably is more an icon for fundraising than a source of funds.

[robeiae]

Originally Posted by TheGaffer

I'm pretty sure Pee-Wee Herman does not want power.

Fool. You've fallen for his act.

The only person I can think of who might actually not want any power whatsoever is Keith Richards. Of course, he can't be killed by conventional weapons, so why would he need power...

[robeiae]

Originally Posted by veinglory

Hmmm. Bin Laden hasn't been a rich man for a very long time. After being cut off and his accounts mostly forzen he probably is more an icon for fundraising than a source of funds.

Like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar...

[billythrilly7th]

Rob, do you like movies about Gladiators?

[TheGaffer]

The only person I can think of who might actually not want any power whatsoever is Keith Richards. Of course, he can't be killed by conventional weapons, so why would he need power...

This would suggest he already has power, more power than you can possibly imagine. He's basically Wolverine, but with better fighting capabilities.

[robeiae]

Originally Posted by billythrilly7th

Rob, do you like movies about Gladiators?

I have all 15 episodes of I, Claudius on tape...

[Bird of Prey]

I think bin Laden is a was. When was the last time anyone saw a live bin Laden? I think we can safely assume that if he isn't in the grave, he's got both feet on a banana peel.

[dclary]

Yeah, those radical muslims let him DIE after we attacked him just so we couldn't HAUL HIM OUT and say "WE GOT HIM! ANOTHER Mission Accomplished!"

Stupid radical muslims!