Fear-Mongering

[Pardalis]

but they also gave up on this issue soon after everyone realized that the threat isn't bigger then before 9/11.

Prove it.

 

[g4macdad]

Am I the only one getting very tired of the Oliver BS? It's the same thing, over and over and over again. It's like a broken record. Don't feed him anymore.

Did you just ask yourself a question and then answer with a suggestion?

 

[The Painter]

Yes

 

[g4macdad]

Prove it.

Then afterwards you prove it.

 

[Pardalis]

Then afterwards you prove it.

I wasn't talking to you.

 

[Gurdur]

Why? Even the European media falls into the American invulnerability myth.
Heck, you did it when you wrote "9/11 was extraordinary, it can't happen this way again." .....I told you the differences. It's a function of geography and history. ....

Thank-you, marksman, for your posts in this thread; your responses have been the most illuminating and contributive ones here.
__________

You know, I keep hearing this. And yet, Al Qaeda is fighting desperately and unsuccessfully to get us out of Iraq

*sigh*
Sometimes, Ziggurat, your overall military and historical ignorance, and your never-ending ideologically-motivated apologias merely depress me, rather than amusing me. Do you realise that Iraq has become the best recruiting ground ever for Al-Qaeda? As well as a sphere for fighting a war of attrition? All Bin Laden had before was the presence of USA troops in Saudi Arabia to complain about; USA troops confined to base, and with absolutely NO say at all in how the place was run -- and their being confined to base was a symptom of their powerlessness in how the place was run. Moreover, they were a hard target; not only protected by being in relatively high-security bases, but also since the Saudi Arabian police and secret police had very effective control over the whole place mostly, and had no desire at all to see terrorist attacks on their own soil. While there were a few terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, they were very limited indeed and very largely absolutely ineffective.

Now, as a result of neo-con mania and Bush-cabinet incompetence, Al-Qaeda have the massive bonus of showing American troops actively involved in being used by the USA admin to have a say in how the place is run (and don't try kidding; while there are limits, if the USA admin says "Frog" the Iraq government has no choice but to jump, and all ultimate responsibility lies with Bush), so Al-Qaeda can point to a real invader, which they couldn't do before.

Moreover, the American troops in Iraq are a far softer target than they were in Saudi Arabia, and that shows up badly in the consistantly high casualty figures. This is a classical war of attrition, where the war itself is the main recruiter for Al-Qaeda, a recruiter they simply did not have before.

Very few people indeed like fighting a war of attrition, but wars of attrition are in fact especially detested by both the American public and the American military; all the training and morale of all kinds is directly opposed to wars of attrition, whereas Al-Qaeda are by and large quite comfortable with that kind of war. Guess who has a good chance of winning from the viewpoint of motivation?

And to dispose of the other common myth: fighting them in Iraq does NOT mean not having to fight them elsewhere at all. In fact, fighting them in Iraq causes MORE of them to exist; if the invasion had not happened the way it did, Al-Qaeda simply would not have had the recruiting power the invasion gave them.

So don't kid yourself; the future does not look rosy at all.

The neo-cons set out to deliberately destabilize the entire region, because they thought the destabilization would work massively in their favour, and regime after regime (Syria and Iran) would suddenly and revolutionarily turn democratic and pro-USA overnight.

Well, the neo-cons certainly succeeded in destabilizing the entire region -- but it backfired really badly, and certainly against American interests for a bloody long time to come.

Now Al-Qaeda have American (and killing lots of fellow muslims in the process, thereby demonstrating to the muslim world the cost of supporting terrorism and dropping Al Qaeda's popularity).

Don't kid yourself. Al-Qaeda are doing very well out of this indeed, and as for Moslems killing Moslems, guess why the Black September terrorist movement was titled that? Or do you have any idea at all about the origins of the Sunni/Shia split?

....I've already demolished this argument: the threats simply are not equivalent, and cannot and should not be treated as if they are. Your repetition of it does not make it any less absurd.

And lastly, as usual, Ziggurat, your grasp of logic is on a par with your historical and military knowledge, that is to say, a bad fail mark for you.

Here you confuse a value comparison with facts comparisions; under one value POV, it's quite valid indeed to compare terrorism casualties with road-accident casualties. Both are casualty counts, get that? Or is that somehow too complex for you? You're objecting to the comparions on value-judgment grounds, and pretending it's on rational logical or category grounds. Illogical and invalid.

..... the Eurotrash mindset, which you display with each troll. When blowhards from a continent full of collective security leaches put on airs, I am happy to stick a pin in your balloon of self importance.

* sigh ³ *
Darth Rotor, the chip on your shoulder about "Europeans" is so big you really should sell it off for the worth of the lumber; it would bring in a very nice sum of cash.

Let's see; one could make remarks about trailer-park Yankee trash who can't even remember the difference between "leaches" and "leeches", and so on. But in the end that's a bad line to take.
Or instead one could point out to you that half the time you make what comes near to a sociopathic argument that might makes right, and there's no such thing as real ethics internationally (you're rather fond of that line, but it's a terribly limited line indeed; as in real life, naked aggressive selfishness only creates opposition which eventually stops it dead in its tracks). By your own logic there then, the USA is making profits through its security outreach, and it's backing up its play for sole ultimate power, so therefore "Europeans" don't have any ethical reason at all to donate yet more money to a power drive by the USA, so for hell's sakes get over yourself, stop whining, wring out your panties, get a fresh pair, and grow up.

What I would prefer to answer with: your attacking all Europeans through such sheer childish abuse merely because you don't like Oliver is ... well, bloody stupid and childish; and more, it's extremely counter-productive for you. Rumsfeld found that out the hard way when he went on a begging tour of Europe, begging for troops and money for Iraq, two years after claiming the USA could do it all by itself and that "Old Europe" was finished and irrelevant. Tough cheese indeed for him.

You're behaving like an immature jerk, and not accomplishing anything with it at all in your own interests. Smarten up, sailor.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Why do you fear Karl Rove?

I don't fear Karl Rove ....

Charlie (just the Karl Rove-like demons) Monoxide

 

[Darth Rotor]

Gurdur, you need to understand a term

Eurotrash.

This is a sub species of European, a whinging, America bashing ingrate who is ignorant of the realities of Europe as a security leaching union. Granted, Europe has location, but that is a poor substitute for political will.

This term does not apply to all Europeans, nor indeed most, but there is a certain vocal crowd of these whinging maggots who, like Oliver, need to be called out for their BS.

Twenty five % of every dollar/euro spent in NATO is still American money, and the EU still sucks at long haul and medium lift logistics. Funnily, the EU and WEU insist on a lot of dual use they don't pay for, as EU and WEU, but do as NATO. (Yes, it is politically convoluted.) Can't stand on their own, sadly, for all of the loud noises made in Brussels, and elsewhere, since the European electorate won't fund it. Talk is cheap. Security leaches.

Reality, friend Gurdur. The capability gap is immense.

My years in NATO lifted the veil for me.

I love Europe, lived there for some years, and made a lot of good friends, some in uniform, some out.

Eurotrash give Europe a bad name. Oliver is Eurotrash.

Note: the French and Germans, chose not to play in Iraq as they felt it was not in their interests to do so. Fine. I get it, and I got it. That doesn't make France and Germany Eurotrash, it makes them rational policy makers: self interest first.

DR

 

[Azure]

Just to add...Eurotrash has extended beyond Oliver into many governments as well.

Just look at the countries doing the heavy lifting in Afghanistan. Outside of the Brits...Europe has pacified their role.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Just to add...Eurotrash has extended beyond Oliver into many governments as well.

Just look at the countries doing the heavy lifting in Afghanistan. Outside of the Brits...Europe has pacified their role.

I'll make a point here. Any government has to craft an RoE that they, and their people, can live with. They sent people to Afghanistan, Danes, Dutch, Germans, Canadians, Brits, a bunch of NATO buds, but had to navigate some painful political waters to do it.

They are in the game, which is a good start. The effort and the risk is appreciated, for all the frustrations with political limitations.

The French guys I worked with on those ops were great guys, but their hands were tied. A pity, and a waste of good men.

DR

 

[Azure]

I'll make a point here. Any government has to craft an RoE that they, and their people, can live with. They sent people to Afghanistan, Danes, Dutch, Germans, Canadians, Brits, a bunch of NATO buds, but had to navigate some painful political waters to do it.

They are in the game, which is a good start. The effort and the risk is appreciated, for all the frustrations with political limitations.

The French guys I worked with on those ops were great guys, but their hands were tied. A pity, and a waste of good men.

DR

Agreed.

Might I say though...the Canadians are holding a heavy burden. Much heavier then many of those other countries you mentioned. And that, to me is not fair. Not fair when some of my friends are exposed to extreme danger day after day, and the French government has their panties in a knot when asked to take a more active role.

 

[Oliver]

Prove it.

That's easy. How many terrorist attacks did you have in the US and Canada since 9/11?

.

.

.

.

.

.

See what I mean?

 

[Mephisto]

Terrorism is different precisely because we do NOT know the threat profile. The day before 9/11, I would have considered a successful terrorist attack of that magnitude on US soil to be exceptionally unlikely.

Funny, I seem to remember a guy that was warning us about something like this . . . What was his name . . . oh yeah, Richard Clarke. I guess the people who were supposed to listen to him thought that scenario exceptionally unlikely as well.

 

[marksman]

Thank-you, marksman, for your posts in this thread; your responses have been the most illuminating and contributive ones here.

Thank you, Gurdur, for the kind words. It's a shame that Oliver has been so steadfastly ignoring my statements, for no reason I can discern (or that he has been able to articulate), except they don't comport with his biases.

 

[Pardalis]

That's easy. How many terrorist attacks did you have in the US and Canada since 9/11?

You don't really understand English do you?

I asked you to prove your point. You made a claim:

Politicians all over the World mentioned and reacted to Terrorism after the 9/11 attacks - but they also gave up on this issue soon after everyone realized that the threat isn't bigger then before 9/11.

The burden of proof is on you bubba. You prove to me that politicians all over the world have given up on the issue of terrorism and that the threat hasn't been bigger then before 9/11.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

No, you don't get my point here. I also believe that these Videos are real - my point is that if you see 100 of these Videos, you are tending to believe in a threat, even if none of the Terrorists in these Videos ever made any attack.

I'm talking about the power of images and words to undermine your critical thinking about the real amount of the threat itself.

For example: Would you believe as much in Terrorism without seeing these videos?

Thats a bit like asking if you would perceive a threat of terrorism if no-one told you about it?

Terrorism in the 1970's was a very real threat, I lost a friend to a sniper attack in Belfast and bombs going off in pubs did lead to hysterical reactions like the Guilford Four. And now the UK is the most surveilled country in the world.

AS for whether it is fear mongering or not - perhaps if there had been more "fear mongering" prior to 9/11 it might not have happened? I guess its some kind of fine line that has to be walked.

As for politicians - it strikes me that they will ALWAYS exploit what is uppermost in the public mind.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sometimes, Ziggurat, your overall military and historical ignorance, and your never-ending ideologically-motivated apologias merely depress me, rather than amusing me. Do you realise that Iraq has become the best recruiting ground ever for Al-Qaeda?

Evidence?

As well as a sphere for fighting a war of attrition?

In a war of attrition, given the imbalance in combat capabilities and resources, we win. I'd be fine with that. But this isn't a war of attrition.

All Bin Laden had before was the presence of USA troops in Saudi Arabia to complain about;

No, that wasn't all he had to complain about, although rather notably he CAN'T complain about it anymore since we've left Saudi Arabia. Are you aware he's still bitching about Andalusia? Got any idea how to solve that one? Or how about the sanctions against Iraq? He bought into the whole myth of half a million dead babies because of the sanctions - can't use that argument anymore.

Now, as a result of neo-con mania and Bush-cabinet incompetence, Al-Qaeda have the massive bonus of showing American troops actively involved in being used by the USA admin to have a say in how the place is run (and don't try kidding; while there are limits, if the USA admin says "Frog" the Iraq government has no choice but to jump, and all ultimate responsibility lies with Bush), so Al-Qaeda can point to a real invader, which they couldn't do before.

And now they also have fellow muslims actively hunting and killing them as well. They never had that before either.

Moreover, the American troops in Iraq are a far softer target than they were in Saudi Arabia, and that shows up badly in the consistantly high casualty figures.

Casualty figures run both ways. How many terrorists were our well-protected troops killing in Saudi Arabia? None.

This is a classical war of attrition,

No, actually, it isn't. It's a media war. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if it were actually seen as an honest-to-goodness war of attrition, because if it WERE, the solution would be trivial: speed up operations and we win faster, because we CAN outlast them in a war of attrition, quite easily. But it isn't a war of attrition, and the danger we face isn't running out of men or material, it's running out of will. That is their ONLY path to victory.

And to dispose of the other common myth: fighting them in Iraq does NOT mean not having to fight them elsewhere at all.

Did I say that was the case? No, I don't believe I did. Which makes this a complete strawman. But what it DOES do is force them to devote much more resources fighting for turf which would otherwise be essentially safe zones. And that DOES put a major crimp on their ability to project those resources outwards towards terrorist operations in the west.

In fact, fighting them in Iraq causes MORE of them to exist;

And killing them in Iraq causes less of them to exist.

if the invasion had not happened the way it did, Al-Qaeda simply would not have had the recruiting power the invasion gave them.

Unsupported assertion. It probably helps recruit a few people. It also turns off a hell of a lot of muslims, especially when they see 1) the survival rate of jihadis in Iraq is pretty low, 2) the Iraqis hate the jihadis, and 3) the jihadis keep talking about expelling the crusaders, but what they mostly do is kill fellow muslims. Not exactly a great recruiting brochure there, is it?

The neo-cons set out to deliberately destabilize the entire region, because they thought the destabilization would work massively in their favour, and regime after regime (Syria and Iran) would suddenly and revolutionarily turn democratic and pro-USA overnight.

Uh, no. None of them thought everyone would suddenly turn democratic and pro-US overnight. You're hallucinating.

Well, the neo-cons certainly succeeded in destabilizing the entire region -- but it backfired really badly, and certainly against American interests for a bloody long time to come.

Not exactly. Syria, for example, is being pushed out of Lebanon. That's very much in the US interest. And it very much happened as a result of the sort of instability that followed in the wake of toppling the regional strongman.

Don't kid yourself. Al-Qaeda are doing very well out of this indeed, and as for Moslems killing Moslems, guess why the Black September terrorist movement was titled that? Or do you have any idea at all about the origins of the Sunni/Shia split?

I'm hardly ignorant of muslim-on-muslim violence. It's the muslim world's dirty little secret. But it's still a hell of a lot easier for most muslims to support terrorist organizations when they don't have to SEE that such inter-faith violence is the primary result. And to the extent that muslims aren't appalled by it, it also changes much of the focus AWAY from us. Why worry about US troops when your fellow muslim is more likely to kill you than we are?

Here you confuse a value comparison with facts comparisions; under one value POV, it's quite valid indeed to compare terrorism casualties with road-accident casualties. Both are casualty counts, get that? Or is that somehow too complex for you? You're objecting to the comparions on value-judgment grounds, and pretending it's on rational logical or category grounds. Illogical and invalid.

You half-wit, I'm not comparing casualties of one sort against the other, I'm comparing RISKS of one sort against the other. Apparently that's too complex for you.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Thank-you, marksman, for your posts in this thread; your responses have been the most illuminating and contributive ones here.
__________


*sigh*
Sometimes, Ziggurat, your overall military and historical ignorance, and your never-ending ideologically-motivated apologias merely depress me, rather than amusing me. Do you realise that Iraq has become the best recruiting ground ever for Al-Qaeda?

sigh. Based on what last years recruiting and re-enlistment figures published by Al Qaeda? Or is this just an assumption you are making?

You do realize that throughout the nineties Al Qaed actually set up a very sophisticated recruitment and training regime that processed thousands of terrorist wannabes?

As well as a sphere for fighting a war of attrition? All Bin Laden had before was the presence of USA troops in Saudi Arabia to complain about; USA troops confined to base, and with absolutely NO say at all in how the place was run -- and their being confined to base was a symptom of their powerlessness in how the place was run. Moreover, they were a hard target; not only protected by being in relatively high-security bases, but also since the Saudi Arabian police and secret police had very effective control over the whole place mostly, and had no desire at all to see terrorist attacks on their own soil. While there were a few terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, they were very limited indeed and very largely absolutely ineffective.

With "only" that Bin Laden and his money managed to put together a large terrorist organizations capable of supporting the training for very large terrorist ops. So those organized and funded terrorists didn't attack a hard target in Saudi Arabia - they attacked a soft target in New York.

Now, as a result of neo-con mania and Bush-cabinet incompetence, Al-Qaeda have the massive bonus of showing American troops actively involved in being used by the USA admin to have a say in how the place is run (and don't try kidding; while there are limits, if the USA admin says "Frog" the Iraq government has no choice but to jump, and all ultimate responsibility lies with Bush), so Al-Qaeda can point to a real invader, which they couldn't do before.

ROFLMAO!! You think that 'truth' has anything to do with what Al Qaeda does or says? You cannot possibly be that naive - can you? They recruited suicide bombers and terrorists long before Iraq or 9/11 they recruited them using the hate filled propaganda that has been spewing out of fundamentalist mosques for decades.

Moreover, the American troops in Iraq are a far softer target than they were in Saudi Arabia, and that shows up badly in the consistantly high casualty figures. This is a classical war of attrition, where the war itself is the main recruiter for Al-Qaeda, a recruiter they simply did not have before.

*If* this is a war of attrition the casualty figures are not high - they are low.

Very few people indeed like fighting a war of attrition, but wars of attrition are in fact especially detested by both the American public and the American military; all the training and morale of all kinds is directly opposed to wars of attrition, whereas Al-Qaeda are by and large quite comfortable with that kind of war. Guess who has a good chance of winning from the viewpoint of motivation?

You could say the same things about the British Army and the IRA. You are correct a long drawn out low intensity conflict is not something traditional military seems well equipped to deal with.

And to dispose of the other common myth: fighting them in Iraq does NOT mean not having to fight them elsewhere at all. In fact, fighting them in Iraq causes MORE of them to exist;

LOL you attempt to dispose of one "myth" by advancing one of your own making.

if the invasion had not happened the way it did, Al-Qaeda simply would not have had the recruiting power the invasion gave them.

Once again advancing your own myth.

So don't kid yourself; the future does not look rosy at all.

of course it doesn't , well not if you are busy inventing your own data showing how bad it all is.

The neo-cons set out to deliberately destabilize the entire region, because they thought the destabilization would work massively in their favour, and regime after regime (Syria and Iran) would suddenly and revolutionarily turn democratic and pro-USA overnight.

care to quote them?

Well, the neo-cons certainly succeeded in destabilizing the entire region -- but it backfired really badly, and certainly against American interests for a bloody long time to come.

Based on what? Your say so? Up to now you have just pushed your own little myth as "proof" of how its all going to turn out. It may indeed turn out badly but that's going to depend on how things are reacted to.

Don't kid yourself. Al-Qaeda are doing very well out of this indeed, and as for Moslems killing Moslems, guess why the Black September terrorist movement was titled that? Or do you have any idea at all about the origins of the Sunni/Shia split?

More than you do, I suspect.

And lastly, as usual, Ziggurat, your grasp of logic is on a par with your historical and military knowledge, that is to say, a bad fail mark for you.

ROFLMAO! You are giving someone a "failing grade" in logic and history? This from someone who appears to have forgotten things that happened a decade ago, let alone decades or centuries? Chutzpah would be a good word or perhaps, hubris.

 

[IXP]

We spend more than that, when you facotr in the cost of every municipality who runs drunk driving checkpoints, the cost of prosecuting people for DUI, the cost of parole programs and education rpograms, not to mention all the PSAs and education done in this country. 500 billion? I'd be surprised if we didn't spend many times that amount as a society.

Many times more than $1667 for each U.S. citizen to fight drunken driving? Please show the evidence for this.

IXP

 

[Oliver]

You don't really understand English do you?

I asked you to prove your point. You made a claim:

The burden of proof is on you bubba. You prove to me that politicians all over the world have given up on the issue of terrorism and that the threat hasn't been bigger then before 9/11.

*lol* You're funny, Pardalis. You are the one who "sees Ghosts", so you should be the one to proof that they exist. /metapher

I already said there was no attack since 9/11 in Canada or the US.
Isn't this proof enough that there is no threat for you and no reason to waste any time and money in a system that already worked before 9/11, but wasn't used properly concerning the Info they had?

Here's evidence for you:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,35264,00.html
http://thoughtalarm.blogspot.com/2007/01/too-much-terror.html
http://www.euractiv.com/en/justice/amnesty-blasts-eu-anti-terror-fear-tactics/article-163913?Ref=RSS
http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/101398/1/3319
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2005/2005-01-13-10.asp

So what are you chickened about?
Terror sells, doesn't it?


Here's a little calculation for you:

3000 People died on 9/11
9/11 is 2089 days ago:

3000 : 2089 = 1.4 people per day die in America because of terrorism since 9/11.

Oh, and "12,000 children die daily from hunger".