So Bush has proven that you can spend a trillion dollars, commit our entire military to a war in Iraq and do absolutely nothing to stop ten people from killing 300 people in a terrorist attack...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3536220/Mumbai-siege-300-feared-dead-as-full-horror-of-the-terrorist-attacks-emerges.html


...You can't win the war on terror by destroying a country. You have to change the hearts and minds of those who would assist people like this. It is an indictment of the whole "Bush Doctrine"...

Lame post.

Annabelle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lame post.


Fuck you

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So Bush has proven that you can spend a trillion
> dollars, commit our entire military to a war in
> Iraq and do absolutely nothing to stop ten people
> from killing 300 people in a terrorist attack...

are you retarded? do you even know where Mumbai is? allow me to inform you, it's in INDIA, not iraq.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

second the lameness!!

WashingToneLocian your lame attempts to blame Bush for all the problems of the world are getting old. You appear to be nothing but a troll now. Do yourself a favor and quit posting and embarssing yourself until you have something intelligent to say (if ever).

lol, wow. the trolls are out in full force today!


GeorgeStevens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingToneLocian your lame attempts to blame Bush
> for all the problems of the world are getting old.
> You appear to be nothing but a troll now. Do
> yourself a favor and quit posting and embarssing
> yourself until you have something intelligent to
> say (if ever).

I'm not blaming Bush for Mumbai. I am stating the fact that the Iraq war has done nothing to stop terrorism. You may think it is lame, but the terrorists are fighting a war of attrition. For every hundred billion dollars and tens of thousands of troops we commit, Al Qaeda has ten guys in a speed boat. Bush's approach was mathematically doomed to fail from the start.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not blaming Bush for Mumbai. I am stating the
> fact that the Iraq war has done nothing to stop
> terrorism. You may think it is lame, but the
> terrorists are fighting a war of attrition. For
> every hundred billion dollars and tens of
> thousands of troops we commit, Al Qaeda has ten
> guys in a speed boat. Bush's approach was
> mathematically doomed to fail from the start.

Well, I agree, sort of. We're really not any safer, unless a terrorist wants to hijack a plane. if anything is more secure now than in 2001, its airport security. I don't see another plane-related attack like that happening again. But otherwise yeah, its done nothing.

And news flash, idiots: Iraq is not where terrorists like the 9/11 ones come from. NO. AND there were no Iraqis involved in 9/11. Iraq right now is full of uneducated and poor shiia/sunni/kurd extremists fighting EACH OTHER. They have no intentions of hijacking planes and doing all that crazy shit we're so scared of. They're just killing each other. thats all. why are we there? i dont know. i undertand we should clean up our mess, but we shouldn'tve gone in in the first place. situation's still plenty volatile and it aint getting better. so we'll end up continuing to send troops in to die in a war for nothing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2008 02:22PM by Awakened.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not blaming Bush for Mumbai. I am stating the
> fact that the Iraq war has done nothing to stop
> terrorism. You may think it is lame, but the
> terrorists are fighting a war of attrition. For
> every hundred billion dollars and tens of
> thousands of troops we commit, Al Qaeda has ten
> guys in a speed boat. Bush's approach was
> mathematically doomed to fail from the start.

Not sure about you, but my understanding is the money paid to eliminate terrorists is kind of geared toward saving American lives as a priority. As with others here, I fail to see how any amount of money spent in defense of American interests is supposed to prevent actions done in some other country. Unless you really weren't aware that Mumbai wasn't in the US.

Bush's approach was doomed to fail? I assume by that you think Obama will cut funding of anti-terrorism activity to zero? I assure you "Bush's approach" was entirely constructed with recommendations from the military and intelligence communities. Blame his bad advice if you don't like the results.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2008 05:30PM by pgens.

Meeper what an original post. You are certainly showing all of us how intelligent you are. Keep up the good work.

WashingToneLocian, you are wrong on the effect of our response to terrorism has had. No attacks here. But you are right on our approach. Unfortunately we are not fighting them the way they are fighting us. We are bogged down by liberals who want to make sure we treat the terrorist humanely. Let the military do their job with no interference from the left and the resuts will be better.

In today's world, terrorism starts and ends with Islam. There are a few ways to cure Islam. One way is the internet. Once these people see and hear what the rest of the world thinks of it, they just might come to their senses. However, this will take several generations, so all we can do is keep it from spreading.

Also, if this country ever developes an energy policy and we discover and implement an alternative form of energy, we can leave their countries and let them eat their oil and kill themselves. Without money from oil, they will not be able to fund terrorism.

Ironically, Osama Bin Laden was the catalyst for the anti-Islam movement taking place now. Without 911 and other foolish attacks (like Mumbai), the world would not be aware of what's happening. 5 years ago, most people felt somewhat sympathetic to muslims, not anymore.

Islam (and other religions) are slowly dying, but it will take a long time. We'll just have to endure and contain it for a while.

GeorgeStevens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meeper what an original post. You are certainly
> showing all of us how intelligent you are. Keep
> up the good work.
>
> WashingToneLocian, you are wrong on the effect of
> our response to terrorism has had. No attacks
> here. But you are right on our approach.
> Unfortunately we are not fighting them the way
> they are fighting us. We are bogged down by
> liberals who want to make sure we treat the
> terrorist humanely. Let the military do their job
> with no interference from the left and the resuts
> will be better.
Attachments:

Meep, thanks for proving my point.
By the way, nice wedding pic. Lucky for you beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

GeorgeStevens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meep, thanks for proving my point.
> By the way, nice wedding pic. Lucky for you
> beauty is in the eye of the beholder.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2008 03:52PM by TheMeeper.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingToneLocian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm not blaming Bush for Mumbai. I am stating
> the
> > fact that the Iraq war has done nothing to stop
> > terrorism. You may think it is lame, but the
> > terrorists are fighting a war of attrition. For
> > every hundred billion dollars and tens of
> > thousands of troops we commit, Al Qaeda has ten
> > guys in a speed boat. Bush's approach was
> > mathematically doomed to fail from the start.
>
> Not sure about you, but my understanding is the
> money paid to eliminate terrorists is kind of
> geared toward saving American lives as a priority.
> As with others here, I fail to see how any amount
> of money spent in defense of American interests is
> supposed to prevent actions done in some other
> country. Unless you really weren't aware that
> Mumbai wasn't in the US.
>
> Bush's approach was doomed to fail? I assume by
> that you think Obama will cut funding of
> anti-terrorism activity to zero? I assure you
> "Bush's approach" was entirely constructed with
> recommendations from the military and intelligence
> communities. Blame his bad advice if you don't
> like the results.


First, Americans were killed in Mumbai, or haven't you been paying attention to the news? Second, Bush's goal was to defeat Al Qaeda. These guys are obviously linked to Al Qaeda. Third, the decision to go to war with Iraq is a civilian decision. It was not made by the military. Bush is wholly responsible for this debacle.

GeorgeStevens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meeper what an original post. You are certainly
> showing all of us how intelligent you are. Keep
> up the good work.
>
> WashingToneLocian, you are wrong on the effect of
> our response to terrorism has had. No attacks
> here. But you are right on our approach.
> Unfortunately we are not fighting them the way
> they are fighting us. We are bogged down by
> liberals who want to make sure we treat the
> terrorist humanely. Let the military do their job
> with no interference from the left and the resuts
> will be better.

I love that rationale "No attacks here." There were "No attacks here" by Al Qaeda before 9/11. I guess you would have to say that Bill Clinton had the right approach.

Or, maybe Al Qaeda accomplished with 9/11 what it needed to and it doesn't need to attack here again.

San Dimas High School football rules

GeorgeStevens Wrote:
Let the military do their job
> with no interference from the left and the resuts
> will be better.


what a fucking stupid statement. exactly what would you have the military doing? rape....pillage? nuclear weapons? if thats the case thnk god for the liberals.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GeorgeStevens Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Meeper what an original post. You are
> certainly
> > showing all of us how intelligent you are.
> Keep
> > up the good work.
> >
> > WashingToneLocian, you are wrong on the effect
> of
> > our response to terrorism has had. No attacks
> > here. But you are right on our approach.
> > Unfortunately we are not fighting them the way
> > they are fighting us. We are bogged down by
> > liberals who want to make sure we treat the
> > terrorist humanely. Let the military do their
> job
> > with no interference from the left and the
> resuts
> > will be better.
>
> I love that rationale "No attacks here." There
> were "No attacks here" by Al Qaeda before 9/11. I
> guess you would have to say that Bill Clinton had
> the right approach.
>
> Or, maybe Al Qaeda accomplished with 9/11 what it
> needed to and it doesn't need to attack here
> again.

HBO just premiered "Charlie Wilson's War" last night, and it's playing all the time this week. I suggest people watch that movie.

We sent $60,000 stingers to the mujahideen to knock out $20 million soviet aircraft. 7 out of 10 stingers launched dropped a soviet aircraft.

We taught them how to bleed a superpower using asymmetrical warfare. When we went into Iraq, we offered them a second front to use that warfare method against us.

As for Awakened's question "why are we there? i dont know." -- we went into Iraq because we needed permanent bases after Saudi Arabia kicked us out. Iraq was the next best place, if only we could have quelled the unrest and restored order quickly enough. In fact, if we had done that, they'd be happy to have our permanent bases there for the revenue it would create. But as it stands with the new SOF agreement, we aren't even going to be able to keep our permanent bases after 2011.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In today's world, terrorism starts and ends with
> Islam. There are a few ways to cure Islam. One way
> is the internet. Once these people see and hear
> what the rest of the world thinks of it, they just
> might come to their senses.

wrong. why would they care what "infidels" think?


> Also, if this country ever developes an energy
> policy and we discover and implement an
> alternative form of energy, we can leave their
> countries and let them eat their oil and kill
> themselves. Without money from oil, they will not
> be able to fund terrorism.

it's not that simple but it would be a good start toward forcing their countries to progress in order to keep up with the world.


> Ironically, Osama Bin Laden was the catalyst for
> the anti-Islam movement taking place now. Without
> 911 and other foolish attacks (like Mumbai), the
> world would not be aware of what's happening. 5
> years ago, most people felt somewhat sympathetic
> to muslims, not anymore.

i do find that amusing.


> Islam (and other religions) are slowly dying, but
> it will take a long time. We'll just have to
> endure and contain it for a while.

im sure the earth will become uninhabitable before that happens.

---

---

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, Americans were killed in Mumbai, or haven't
> you been paying attention to the news?

i havent heard this. how many americans were killed?


> Second, Bush's goal was to defeat Al Qaeda.

the US has done significant damage to their organization. they have had to retreat into pakistan from afganistan.


> These guys are obviously linked to Al Qaeda.

you obviously dont realize how many islamic militant factions there are.


> Third, the decision to go to war with Iraq is
> a civilian decision. It was not made by the
> military. Bush is wholly responsible for
> this debacle.

because there was no congressional vote on this, ever.


WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There were "No attacks here" by Al Qaeda before 9/11.

you mean like the USS Cole or the world trade center bombing?

- details on some of the attacks on the US by al qaeda
- breif [ and incomplete] timeline of al qaeda attacks


> I guess you would have to say that Bill Clinton had
> the right approach.

you mean doing nothing at all so that we were attacked the next year? what a great approach.


> Or, maybe Al Qaeda accomplished with 9/11 what it
> needed to and it doesn't need to attack here
> again.

you dont know shit about islamic militant groups. their goal is to convert you and if you reject islam they kill you. so until the whole world is islamic, they will always be killing "infidels" like us. have you noticed how many attacks they have had against britain? islamic militant groups are relentless in trying to kill people.


now go sit in the corner you dumbshit.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2012 12:48PM by Alias.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> you dont know shit about islamic militant groups.
> their goal is to convert you and if you reject
> islam they kill you.

And you don't know how to read. What I have said is that we need to create an environment where those who are aware with what is being planned will work with us. I don't expect to convert radicals. But the 100 or so people who had some sense of what was going on who might be inclined to tip off the right people...that's who we need to win over.

> so until the whole world is
> islamic, they will always be killing "infidels"
> like us.

You are making my argument for me. Bush has approached this with the idea we could spend $1 trillion and somehow prevent another 9/11. We can't. It's a war of attrition. As long as there are 19 guys on planes or 10 guys in boats, this shit will happen.

> have you noticed how many attacks they
> have had against britain? islamic militant groups
> are relentless in trying to kill people.
>
>

They are relentless in trying to bring down the U.S. by bankrupting us, which they are succeeding at. If you listen to Bin Laden, he believes he defeated the Soviet Union by bankrupting it. That is their strategy and Bush has played into it.

> now go sit in the corner you dumbshit.
>
>

I'm hardly pwn3d. I know much more about this kind of thing than you do. Keep sitting at your desk in your bedroom getting fatter Daniel, or whatever your real name is.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Remember when the Islamic radicals were beheading
> people on TV? It stopped when they realized that
> even the liberals found this offensive.
>
> The enemy can only survive with the support of
> Americans.


Actually, the beheadings stopped when other conservative Muslims found it offensive. We need to educate the Muslim world about these people and what their real agenda is. They will kill anyone...Christian, Jew, Muslim...anyone who doesn't think EXACTLY like they do. They are a cult of death...a dead end.

We work against ourselves when WE become the enemy by kicking in the doors of innocent people and shooting the wrong people.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We need
> to educate the Muslim world about these people and
> what their real agenda is. They will kill
> anyone...Christian, Jew, Muslim...anyone who
> doesn't think EXACTLY like they do. They are a
> cult of death...a dead end.
>
> We work against ourselves when WE become the enemy
> by kicking in the doors of innocent people and
> shooting the wrong people.

You are absolutely right. Now take yourself and the rest of the "we" you are referring to and go over there and do that.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingToneLocian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > We need
> > to educate the Muslim world about these people
> and
> > what their real agenda is. They will kill
> > anyone...Christian, Jew, Muslim...anyone who
> > doesn't think EXACTLY like they do. They are a
> > cult of death...a dead end.
> >
> > We work against ourselves when WE become the
> enemy
> > by kicking in the doors of innocent people and
> > shooting the wrong people.
>
> You are absolutely right. Now take yourself and
> the rest of the "we" you are referring to and go
> over there and do that.


I pay taxes that support the military so, yes, I am part of WE.

It's silly and stupid to interpret terrorism as religiously based in Islam. There were terrorist before the current wave of Islamic terrorism and it will continue after every member of Al Qaeda is dead and gone. Any where there are persons who feel all their options for regress are gone..there will be terrorists. Anytime the people in power are unwilling to share in their power and wealth their will be terrorists. The Romans considered local militias as terrorists....the British considered the American insurgents..the Irish insurgents...the Zionist insurtgents...the Indian insurgents as terrorists. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist.

Vinke,
   your post is completely erroneous to anything people have posted. just shut the fuck up because you are just as bad as a child throwing a tantrum.



"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vinke,
>    your post is completely
> erroneous to anything people have posted. just
> shut the fuck up because you are just as bad as a
> child throwing a tantrum.
>

Still laughing at the picture here.

WTL wrote the following and it's pretty obvious that whoever did this to anyone would be an enemy. If you didn't know who he was referencing who would you think?

My first thought were the NAZIS treatment of the Jews, but it could be any other country. But it's not the actions I thought our country would recklessly be taking time after time. We are breeding terrorism and making it worse, not stopping it's mindset.

Citizens in our country are also being treated almost as bad, for less reason.

"We work against ourselves when WE become the enemy by kicking in the doors of innocent people and shooting the wrong people."


Do you believe Bush and/or Cheney should be brought up on charges?

spunky Wrote:
>>> Do you believe Bush and/or Cheney should be brought up on charges?


The last thing we need is an overarching, retaliatory investigation. Things are fucked up enough, it would only distract the new administration. It would distract them for YEARS.

So I think it would be smart to issue a blanket-pardon to all those involved. Bush, Cheney, et al. Let everyone involved know that they won't be charged as criminals. Maybe then people would not stonewall and legally avoid answering the questions that need to be asked. Let them know it's NOT a witch-hunt. We just need to know the facts, so we can figure out how to make sure this never happens ever again.

Start an investigation? Well, game over.

But if we give the folks a chance to tell the real story, without consequence, we might be able to learn some real lessons.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vinke,
>    your post is completely
> erroneous to anything people have posted. just
> shut the fuck up because you are just as bad as a
> child throwing a tantrum.
>
>
>
Gravis...dear boy! The day I look to you for some sort of confirmation of what I post is a long way off...so if you want to waste your time...keep it up. You alone motivate me to post even the most trivial idea I might have.

By the way...how are your parents doing these days? Hvae they started to charge you rent? Tell your momma I miss her sweet punta!

spunky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WTL wrote the following and it's pretty obvious
> that whoever did this to anyone would be an enemy.
> If you didn't know who he was referencing who
> would you think?
>
> My first thought were the NAZIS treatment of the
> Jews, but it could be any other country. But it's
> not the actions I thought our country would
> recklessly be taking time after time. We are
> breeding terrorism and making it worse, not
> stopping it's mindset.
>
> Citizens in our country are also being treated
> almost as bad, for less reason.
>
> "We work against ourselves when WE become the
> enemy by kicking in the doors of innocent people
> and shooting the wrong people."
>
>
> Do you believe Bush and/or Cheney should be
> brought up on charges?


No.

But I think history needs to record the Bush Doctrine as the intellectually bankrupt doctrine it is.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> spunky Wrote:
> >>> Do you believe Bush and/or Cheney should be
> brought up on charges?
>
>
> The last thing we need is an overarching,
> retaliatory investigation. Things are fucked up
> enough, it would only distract the new
> administration. It would distract them for
> YEARS.
>
> So I think it would be smart to issue a
> blanket-pardon to all those involved. Bush,
> Cheney, et al. Let everyone involved know that
> they won't be charged as criminals. Maybe then
> people would not stonewall and legally avoid
> answering the questions that need to be asked.
> Let them know it's NOT a witch-hunt. We just need
> to know the facts, so we can figure out how to
> make sure this never happens ever again.
>
> Start an investigation? Well, game over.
>
> But if we give the folks a chance to tell the real
> story, without consequence, we might be able to
> learn some real lessons.

I just don't like the precedent that creates.

It's bad enough they believed they could get away with it in the first place because they believe that most americans have short attention spans and are not intellectually sophisticated enough to see the reality through all of their misinformation, hyperbole and fear-mongering.

But to establish a precedent where the next ideologically twisted group knows all they have to do is be audacious enough in order to get away with it, just opens this country up to the sorts of things that have happened in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Congo, Cambodia, etc.

It sends a message that as long as they tone it down in the last few years in office, the next administration will just say "we need to know why it happened, but nobody will have to face any consequences."

I'm all for knowing the truth, because nobody on either side of the partisan divide has a true picture. It can't be as bad as has been made out by the huffingtonpost types, and it certainly can't be as benevolent and benign as has been made out by the Hannity/O'Reilly/Kristol types.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> No.
>
> But I think history needs to record the Bush
> Doctrine as the intellectually bankrupt doctrine
> it is.


I think that much is already a fact. Neoconservatism has been declared to be a misguided and un-american faction. Even Fox News viewers have been reprogrammed into believing the neoconservatives never even existed. PNAC shut down a year or two ago.

Unfortunately, just like in the Iran/Contra scandal, since nobody of significance faced any significant punishment, they kept their heads down, stayed out of the public eye and then were emboldened once again after 9/11.

You can't allow these caustic ideas to fester.

I agree with you Bob, this mindset could have also contributed to our present economic situation and the wallstreet Bail-out, in other words...GREED! If we don't punish those responsible for breaking our laws, we might as well call them illegal immigrants take away their passports and money and send them to an isolated hot island country(with no sunscreen)...seems fair enough. Oh yea, force feed them fatening foods the rest of their life. They'll turn into human
strawberries, but that still doesn't make-up for all the souls lost, families ruined, arogance hauted, money they threw away, manipulation and evil personified.

There should be a human zoo for them to be placed in for all eternity. There were adults and were well aware of what they were doing. An example needs to be set to put our country back on the right track again for the good of our country through the punishment of bad men who knowingly did bad things.

spunky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with you Bob, this mindset could have also
> contributed to our present economic situation and
> the wallstreet Bail-out, in other words...GREED!
> If we don't punish those responsible for breaking
> our laws, we might as well call them illegal
> immigrants take away their passports and money and
> send them to an isolated hot island country(with
> no sunscreen)...seems fair enough. Oh yea, force
> feed them fatening foods the rest of their life.
> They'll turn into human
> strawberries, but that still doesn't make-up for
> all the souls lost, families ruined, arogance
> hauted, money they threw away, manipulation and
> evil personified.
>
> There should be a human zoo for them to be placed
> in for all eternity. There were adults and were
> well aware of what they were doing. An example
> needs to be set to put our country back on the
> right track again for the good of our country
> through the punishment of bad men who knowingly
> did bad things.

I prefer the rule of law. Our justice system has laws and punishments that can be used against anyone who may have committed a crime while in office.

Doing anything extra out of vindictiveness undermines the very system these people have already undermined.

Civilized societies follow rules. If we don't we are no better than these people.

Yes, but Bob our legal system needs an overhaul seriously. If you have enough money you can buy your justice, which is hardly justice. Let's face it our legal system does not provide justice, it provides laws which attorneys try to apply or circumvent. But the system is also way behind reality. This admin. basically played the legal system like a checker board, hoping someone would be crowned king. Now that was a good one, if I do say so myself, by golly!

I prefer the human zoo! And throw away the keys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> First, Americans were killed in Mumbai, or haven't
> you been paying attention to the news? Second,
> Bush's goal was to defeat Al Qaeda. These guys are
> obviously linked to Al Qaeda. Third, the decision
> to go to war with Iraq is a civilian decision. It
> was not made by the military. Bush is wholly
> responsible for this debacle.


I believe two Americans were killed. Both were from Virginia, actually.

These guys are not OBVIOUSLY linked to al-qaeda, either.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/27/asia/28group.php

Global terrorism experts said Thursday they had never heard of the group. And based on its tactics, they said, it was probably not a cell or group linked to Al Qaeda.

"It's even unclear whether it's a real group or not," said Bruce Hoffman, a professor at the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and the author of the book "Inside Terrorism." "It could be a cover name for another group, or a name adopted just for this particular incident."

Chrtistine Fair, senior political scientist and a South Asia expert at the RAND Corporation, was careful to say that the identity of the terrorists could not yet be known. But she insisted the style of the attacks and the targets in Mumbai suggested that the militants were likely to be Indian Muslims - and not linked to Al Qaeda or the violent South Asian terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba.

"There's absolutely nothing Al Qaeda-like about it," she said of the attack. "Did you see any suicide bombers? And there are no fingerprints of Lashkar. They don't do hostage taking, and they don't do grenades."

Hoffman agreed that the assault was "not exactly Al Qaeda's modus operandi, which is suicide attacks."

However, Bush didn't just vow to go to war against al-qaeda. He vowed to go to war with anyone who wasn't "with us". So his omnipotent war against extremists should have been going after these groups, as well.

These guys are not linked directly to Al Qaeda, but they come from the same tree.

The Pakistani intelligence agency that was behind the formation of the Mujahadeen - the forerunner of Al Qaeda - and the Taliban, also created the group that these terrorists are from in order to wrestle control of Kashmir away from India through terrorist attacks.

As for this not being Al Qaeda's MO, all but one of the terrorists is dead in what was obviously a suicide mission by Pakistanis, so I'm not sure what Fair and Hoffman are smoking.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These guys are not linked directly to Al Qaeda,
> but they come from the same tree.
>
> The Pakistani intelligence agency that was behind
> the formation of the Mujahadeen - the forerunner
> of Al Qaeda - and the Taliban, also created the
> group that these terrorists are from in order to
> wrestle control of Kashmir away from India through
> terrorist attacks.
>
> As for this not being Al Qaeda's MO, all but one
> of the terrorists is dead in what was obviously a
> suicide mission by Pakistanis, so I'm not sure
> what Fair and Hoffman are smoking.

I agree that ISI is behind the taliban and al-qaeda, as is the Saudi al-Mukhabarat (or General Intelligence Directorate). But I'm not sure that the mumbai attacks are related, or are instead part of some other internal muslim group. There are other islamic groups in india that don't have any affiliation or political ties to Kashmir.

However, if you understand how the World Assembly of Muslim Youth and the World Muslim League perpetuate wahhabist islamic radicalism worldwide, then it isn't a tie with al-qaeda, it is a tie with Saudi Wahhabis that is the common denominator.

Considering that all but one terrorist is dead, which means one survived, I don't think they believed this was a suicide attack. Suicide attacks generally are pretty straightforward -- they blow themselves up in a place where they can maximize civilian deaths. These guys planned on killing/executing as many civilians as possible, but it isn't clear that they intended to die. Sure, they may have realized they could get killed, but they may also have expected to be able to escape at some point. Suicide attackers don't take hostages, they kill whoever they can as quickly as they can. Hostages are leverage for people hoping to get away or negotiate. (at least, in general.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2008 11:27PM by Bob.

Frankly I don't see any difference