Could there be more to the attacks than what we are hearing?

[J.Quest]

When it come to 9/11 and terrorism sponsored by Islamic states and groups, one theme that seems to be constant is the message that "Your leaders are hiding from you the true extent of the disaster." or that the American people have been lied to about the true reason for the attacks. It's easy enough to follow history and the timeline leading up to global jihad, but what exactly is meant by this and is there any proof? Is there another reason we're not hearing about that would lead doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other highly educated and wealthy people to become strategizing murderers?

 

[GAVol]

No

 

[volmanjr]

propaganda

 

[J.Quest]

Indeed...we are truly in trouble because as Americans we (the majority) like to think that if we leave the middle-east alone they will just go away. It is AQ's mission to destroy us no matter what by any means possible...this is from a larger article at discoverthenetworks.org:

In a June 2002 manifesto (translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute), al Qaeda spokesman Suleiman Abu Gheith wrote, "America is the head of heresy in our modern world, and it leads an infidel democratic regime that is based upon separation of religion and state and on ruling the people by the people via legislating laws that contradict the way of Allah and permit what Allah has prohibited. . . . America is the reason for all oppression, injustice, licentiousness, or suppression that is the Muslims' lot. . . . We have the right to kill 4 million Americans - 2 million of them children - and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons. . . . America is kept at bay by blood alone."
Al Qaeda's objectives, motives, and strategies are further detailed in an Al Qaeda Training Manual designed to instruct aspiring terrorists in the art of murdering "infidels." The manual was discovered by England's Manchester Metropolitan Police during a search of an al Qaeda member's home. "Islamic governments have never and will never be established through peaceful solutions and cooperative councils," states this publication. "They are established as they [always] have been by pen and gun, by word and bullet, by tongue and teeth." The manual further exhorts jihadists to "pledge . . . to make their [the infidels'] women widows and their children orphans . . . to slaughter them like lambs and let the Nile, al-Asi, and Euphrates rivers flow with their blood . . . to be a pick of destruction for every godless and apostate regime."

In addition, the manual enumerates what it calls "Missions Required of the Military Organization." Among these are: "Assassinating enemy personnel as well as foreign tourists; . . . Spreading rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy; Blasting and destroying the places of amusement, immorality, and sin; Blasting and destroying the embassies and attacking vital economic centers; Blasting and destroying bridges leading into and out of the cities."

Finally, the manual explicitly declares that among al Qaeda's "long-term goals" is "the establishment of an Islamic state." But an "Islamic government would never be established except by the bomb and rifle," the manual informs. "Islam does not coincide or make a truce with unbelief, but rather confronts it. The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes, does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun."

 

[OWB]

Indeed...we are truly in trouble because as Americans we (the majority) like to think that if we leave the middle-east alone they will just go away. It is AQ's mission to destroy us no matter what by any means possible...this is from a larger article at discoverthenetworks.org:

So wouldn't it be smart to actually go after AQ?

 

[J.Quest]

How does one go about doing that if AQ is truly a philosophy in as much as it is a group of extremists?

• Does attacking a country make sense? We tried that in Afghanistan and Iraq with little success so far.
• People don't think wire tapping is a good idea.
• We can't assassinate dictators.
• We can't harm even one civilian (how do you even seperate the civilians from the terrorists?)

That just leaves one thing...we can bend over!!!:moon2:

 

[OneManGang]

Nazism was a philosphy as well with supporting intellectual documents dating back to the 1700s. However, all "successful" philosophies have to manifest themselves in a country and/or a society. Once this occurs, and assuming it is a malevolent cancer such as Wahhabist Islam, it changes from "philosophy" to "target."

Ol' Wm. T hissownself summed up my approach to the War on Terror rather succinctly: "War is cruelty and you cannot refine it, the crueler we make it the shorter it will be."

Of course, as one contemporary of Sherman put it, "He believes in Hard War."

 

[vader]

:realmad: I watched the footage of the WTC attacks yesterday plus this crap and I have an idea.

 

[OWB]

:realmad: I watched the footage of the WTC attacks yesterday plus this crap and I have an idea.

That has Iran written all over it.

 

[J.Quest]

Nazism was a philosphy as well with supporting intellectual documents dating back to the 1700s. However, all "successful" philosophies have to manifest themselves in a country and/or a society. Once this occurs, and assuming it is a malevolent cancer such as Wahhabist Islam, it changes from "philosophy" to "target."

That's pretty much hitting the nail on the head!!! I like it and agree that that's what it will take. Iran is getting very close to making the philosphy to target jump.

 

[OneManGang]

In a previous life I was a columnist on The Strategy Page (Military News Military Intelligence Military History Military PHOTO). this is from two years ago. Sherman's challenge remains unanswered.

Sherman’s Challenge
By Pat Gang
23 June 2004

One hundred forty years ago, General William Tecumseh Sherman let it be known that he intended to force the evacuation of Atlanta and then burn it to the ground. This action would, at one swoop, cut his own supply lines and eliminate a potential base for Confederate resistance. Once out of the city, he would begin his famed “March to the Sea.”

His Confederate counterpart, General John Bell Hood, wrote Sherman an impassioned letter begging him not to put Atlanta to the torch. Sherman promptly answered Hood and two sentences in his reply prove why he enjoys a reputation as one the most eloquent commanders in American history, in the first he bluntly states, “War is cruelty and you cannot refine it.”

The recent horrific executions of Nick Berg, Paul Johnson and Kim Sun-il have brought Sherman’s remark into sharp focus. Nick Berg’s execution set the standard for the others. Some mystery still surrounds the exact circumstances of just how Berg ended up in the hands of al Qaeda terrorists. What is not a mystery is what happened next. Nick Berg was beheaded in a particularly gruesome and grotesque fashion. As Berg died screaming, his murderers chanted “God is great” before a TV camera.

War is cruelty and you cannot refine it.

These murders come while this country has been wallowing (and there is no other word for it) in the scandal revolving about the mistreatment of some Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib Prison. A relative handful of prison guards took pictures as they forced some of the detainees into humiliating and degrading poses. This being an election year, once these photos became public, elected officials of every stripe felt an overwhelming need to weigh in on the subject. Stentorian tones have emanated from the halls of Congress and various DOD and military leaders were called on the carpet. While disturbing, the Al Ghraib issue can be weighed against one simple fact. No Abu Ghraib prisoners were beheaded.

These brutal murders have gone a long way toward re-introducing Americans to the nihilistic and bloodthirsty nature of our enemy. The aftershocks of 9-11 have faded, rapidly replaced in the popular mind by vapid interest in the murky doings at Michael Jackson’s estate or exactly how many square inches of Paris Hilton are available for public viewing.

Most wars have some defining point where the exact nature of the conflict becomes crystal clear. Early in the battle for Guadalcanal, a twenty-five man intelligence patrol under LTC Frank Goettge, was ambushed. The last of three survivors to escape returned to Marine lines and told of seeing swords and bayonets gleaming as wounded Americans were stabbed and beheaded. At that point the Americans realized fully, that they were up against a ferocious enemy that would give no quarter and expected none in return. The tale of the Goettge Patrol became standard briefing material for men on their way to the Pacific Theater and was also published in Richard Tregaskis’ book, Guadalcanal Diary and was a prominent part of the 1943 movie by the same title. Civilians watching the film or reading the book were shocked to the very soles of their feet. The savagery of the war crashed into Main Street, USA. Civilian American steeled itself and resolved to meet savagery with savagery. The book and movie were the WWII equivalent of the Berg video.

War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it.

In our post-modern, comfortable cosseted world has now come a savagery. Can we, as a people summon the necessary savagery to defeat it? Can we accept that many “innocent” lives will have to be taken by American arms to pin down and defeat this foe? Are we capable of mustering the cruelty to see this war through? Do our elected leaders understand another Sherman quote, “that war is war, and not popularity seeking?” Can we live up to the sentence following “War is cruelty…” with which General Sherman gives us the solution to the conundrum that he faced in the fourth year of our bloody Civil War and we face today?

“The crueler we make it, the shorter it will be.”

 

[J.Quest]

Great article! I just hope it won't be too late before we get to that point. The media makes it very tough to have a war now days. You'd think (at least in my mind) that we'd already be to that point with the beheadings, 9/11, and continuous flow of car bombs.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Let me ask you this. When fighting this war, are you advocating that we become no different than the people we fight against? Because I keep hearing how evil and abusive with little regard for life these regimes we fight against are. Then I hear people advocating using the same methods. Which is it? Are these methods wrong and must be stopped OR are these methods fair game to send right back at the same enemy who uses them?

There is a line here in morality that seems to be clouded during this period of the War on Terror. We are told how brutal these methods are and how those who use them must be removed as if they are a cancer on mankind. Then we hear comments like "I'd do the same thing" or "they deserve worse than that themselves".

Where are we on this?

 

[J.Quest]

Personally, I'd like to see the media and imbedded reporters removed from war time activities and military movements. My reason for this is that the reporting is often times over-dramatized and serves to undermine our operations. Wars are ugly in the minds of most but are necessary when that is the only language that seems to be understood by the enemy. If an enemy is telling you that unless you convert to Islam and agree to the terms of their truce they are going to attempt to wipe you out, I think you are forced to take action. Gang is right in saying that there will be a defining moment that will take us to the next level in this war...a point where the little kid gloves come off and the majority finally realizes we are fighting to preserve ourselves. Think of the irony if that happens while a left-winger is in office.

 

[OneManGang]

Let me ask you this. When fighting this war, are you advocating that we become no different than the people we fight against? Because I keep hearing how evil and abusive with little regard for life these regimes we fight against are. Then I hear people advocating using the same methods. Which is it? Are these methods wrong and must be stopped OR are these methods fair game to send right back at the same enemy who uses them?

There is a line here in morality that seems to be clouded during this period of the War on Terror. We are told how brutal these methods are and how those who use them must be removed as if they are a cancer on mankind. Then we hear comments like "I'd do the same thing" or "they deserve worse than that themselves".

Where are we on this?

Rush asked a much better question yesterday:

RUSH: You know what gets me, this continual moral equivalence.
Well, you know, if we torture these guys, or if we water board 'em, we're just becoming them, and aren't they winning? It is so stupid! Two atomic bombs in Japan, numerous civilians killed in both the Pacific and European theaters of World War II. What is this?
What is this silly notion that we're going to become like the bad guys if we fight them?

 

[Vol-In-Bama]

I think one of the problems is the misconception that diplomacy can overcome all things, that war is for barbarians that don't have the intellect to comprimise.

This is a war. In WWII, we fought the enemy brutally, there was not much concern given to collateral damage. Entire cities were leveled as military targets. We won that war.

In every conflict since, there has been so much concern with saving face politcally, and we have floundered to some degree. I personally agree with Gen. Sherman.

Good post Gang! Thanks!

 

[CSpindizzy]

So you're saying every time Bush basically says we are fighting this brutality and trying to bring democracy, that he's basically lying? Because that is what it sounds like. The point is we're being fed the line that we're in this to get rid of this mentality but then use it as a tool to achieve our goals. That makes us hypocrites. Already Bush has waffled on treatment of prisoners, interrogations, etc. All I heard since before this conflict is how Saddam tortured people, how civilians were fearful of military actions, people being rounded up and whisked away never to be seen again, etc. etc. and how wrong that is. Then I see the same government that decried that behavior and used that as a means to war using these same methods.

 

[CSpindizzy]

This is not a conventional war here. This is not something where we can go in and use the same tactics used against us and expect to win. This is a complete psychological operation in which we have to wipe out the threats but do so with means that ensures the others present do not turn against us. We're trying to convince these people our way, the democratic way, is superior. Our whole effort is turning them to our thinking. These people initially saw us as liberators. We had most people willing to sit back and give us the benefit of the doubt.But when you go into areas and use the same methods that Saddam did your whole purpose has just been flushed down the toilet. Those who were once willing to give you the benefit of the doubt or even trust you have now seen that we are no different. That is where they fall back to Americans being evil and those then turn on us. Then our whole mission of nation building and those who died to pursue this mission is tossed out the door.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em."
- Lieutenant-General Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller

"there are not enough chinamen in the world to stop a fully armed Marine regiment
from going where ever they wont to go"
- Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller​

"I want you boys to hurry up and whip these Germans so we can get out to the Pacific to kick the s**t out of the purple-pissing Japanese, before the Godda**ed MARINES get all the credit!"
LTGEN PATTON, USA 1945

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
GEORGE ORWELL

"Sometimes it is entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledge-hammer!"
MAJ HOLDREDGE

"Our Country won't go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won't be any AMERICA because some foreign soldier will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race!"
LTGEN LEWIS "CHESTY" PULLER, USMC

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, 1985

"The man who will go where his colors go without asking, who will fight a phantom foe in a jungle or a mountain range, and who will suffer and die; in the midst of incredible hardship, without complaint, is still what he has always been, from Imperial Rome to sceptered Britain to democratic America. He is the stuff of which legends are made. His pride is his colors and his regiment, his training hard and thorough and coldly realistic, to fit him for what he must face, and his obedience is to his orders. As a legionnaire, he held the gates of civilization for the classical world...today he is called United States Marine."
LTCOL FEHRENBACH, USA, in "This Kind of War"

The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected
- Sun Tzu, the Art of War
He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War​

 

[J.Quest]

But in order to liberate, we had to launch a military strike. Military campaigns, even successful ones, have casualties and collateral damage. The media has undermined much of what has been done by posting silly images of what took place at Abu G and Club Gitmo. These pale in comparison to the beheadings that took place and flying planes into civilian buildings. AQ and the extremists even murder their own people...daily we here about how dozens of Iraqi's were found tortured and executed by insurgents. I highly doubt that pschological tactics will work at this point. What you are discribing is a scenario where the US becomes very favorable and AQ is unable to recruit people for Jihad against us...that will never happen. As you have stated before, this is something that has been building for decades.

 

[CSpindizzy]

All of that took place after we liberated Iraq. Saddam was out of power and we were in control when all of these questioned events transpired.

What I said that has been building for decades is the sectarian violence that is top right now. While trying to stay focused on the war on terror we are now having to babysit and pull apart two sides of a religion that have fought for centuries.

Essentially we are losing focus on the reason we are there to begin with. We are now tied up with family squabbles. And in Afghanistan, we now see the Taliban coming back full force when we were told that this country was pretty much the beacon of light for all to see.

At the same time, we preach the spreading of democracy all while coddling to a military dictatorship that overthrew a democratic government.

We don't want democracy in this region. This is the biggest lie out there. Democracy merely sends us right back to this region if we even left to begin with. Democracy gave us Hamas in the Palestinian government, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Mahmoud in Iran, Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt, etc. If we truly want democracy, then make Pakistan a free country and see what happens.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

If we truly want democracy, then make Pakistan a free country and see what happens.

The Taliban would rule.....doh!

 

[volinbham]

We do want democracy there -- it's just that the pursuit may be futile.

 

[volinbham]

Our approach is quite different from Saddam's or the terrorists. The moral eqivalency argument is bunk.

Some may perceive us as using the same tactics but that doesn't make it so. Abuses happen but the moral issue is what is the intent behind the action.

In short, we can be more aggressive in tactics without becoming "like the terrorists".

 

[CSpindizzy]

Our approach is quite different from Saddam's or the terrorists. The moral eqivalency argument is bunk.
quote]

You may think it's bunk sitting here in your cozy home in the US but many Iraqis would disagree with you. It's easy for you to say it is 'bunk' but for those who live with the fighting and killing on a daily basis reality is much different.