Understanding terrorism

[xoxoxoBruce]

Who cares...they don't have anything we want.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Urbane Guerrilla would even claim that Saddam was participatory in attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Nope.

Remarkable how many Americans think some other Americans believe that, and will insist to the rest of us that somebody else, somewhere on the continent, believes that. However, actually finding such people is damned hard -- I certainly don't know any.

Let's see, what did North Vietnam get from Communist-bloc sources? Every rifle they fired at us once they'd run out the supply of catch-as-catch-can WW2 surplus, every cartridge also fired from these SKS and AK rifles, and the PPSh submachineguns and their cartridge, which also means the Tokarev semiauto pistols that fire the same cartridge, every ChiCom grenade, every SA-2 Guideline missile, and every MiG-15, -17, and -21. Both Red Chinese and Soviet sources, if memory serves. Ho got this largesse through fearing Chinese dominion? Please.

But that won't be enough evidence for you, TW. No factual evidence will ever jar you from your fellow-traveling. You are now trying to turn things to make ME the issue. You will fail, as you generally do. It's pretty clear you're only going to find out what you're up against the hard way.

[tw]

Originally Posted by tw

Urbane Guerrilla would even claim that Saddam was participatory in attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Nope.

Remarkable how many Americans think some other Americans believe that, and will insist to the rest of us that somebody else, somewhere on the continent, believes that. However, actually finding such people is damned hard -- I certainly don't know any.

From The Weekly Standard entitled
Case Closed

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

UG - just a little more history you forgot to learn before you rewrote it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Having lived through the 1960s, I don't recall that Richard Nixon thought of it in quite this way. He seems instead to have possessed the Republican capacity for resolve in war. Even with all our too-polite strategy, the communists remained stalemated until we left in 1973.

Johnson finally conceded that his Generals, especially Westmoreland, were lying to him. The war was not winnable. So Generals (and Urbane Guerrilla) wanted to take the war into other nations. The same Curtis LeMay, who also claimed we would win a nuclear exchange, agrees with UG. How scary is UG's world?

From McNamara's own analysis,

[The Vietnam War] had been an American war almost from its beginning: at first French-American, eventually wholly American. In both cases it was a struggle of Vietnamese ... against American policy and American financing, proxies, technicians, firepower, and finally, troops and pilots. ...
In terms of the UN Charter and of our own avowed ideals, [The Vietnam War] was a war of foreign aggression, American aggression.

Ok Urbane Guerrilla. You tell me about a Nixon who had a resolve for war. Nixon literally sent every remaining conventional weapon we had against N Vietnam. Results were exactly as virtually every intellegence agency had predicted in the 1960s. There were no military significant targets in N Vietnam. Bombing would not deter a nation from its declaration of indpendence. But then winning the war was not a Nixon agenda.

Having lived through the 60s, you only learned what was convenient. By 1969, this was a fact from the field as even stated to Johnson by Gen Westmoreland when Westmoreland was asking for another 1/2 million troops. The Vietnamese would match our troop strength no matter how many troops we sent into Vietnam. How is that war winnable when we remain in the world of reality?

Nixon also would not commit additional troops we really did not have. The 'polite' war had severely tapped out most conventional weapon systems. There were no reserves to deploy. And winning the war was long proven not possible as Nixon's own actions proved. Nixon was only interested in 'withdrawing with honor'. Just as long as a unilateral withdrawl did not happen under Nixon's watch. This was Nixon's secret plan to end the war. Sacrifice good men from my generation for his greater glory.

Realizing how badly the war was going, Nixon even proposed mutual troop withdrawls - and N Vietnam rejected the offer. Obviously. Why would N Vietnam that was winning the war and fighting for independence instead withdrawl troops? Meanwhile Nixon felt that as long as he keep up the war, then a N Vietnam flag would not fly in Saigon until after 1972. Nixon was primarily worried about how a N Vietnam flag in Saigon would affect Nixon's reputation; America be damned. Some Democrats also had the same self serving agenda - to make it more of Nixon's war. Again, America be damned.

By 1967, no S Vietnam military units would patrol at night. S Vietnamese unit commanders could be punished if they lost material in a VC battle because their primary mission was to protect the government ... from whom? Even in 1965 as well as in 1970

Almost no one from the embassy traveled much outside the environs of Saigon alone in a car; everyone moved by chopper or sometimes in a convoy.

This was a war that UG claims America could win? Ironically, Americans are just as restricted from movement in Iraq. Deja Vue.

Richard Nixon's primary interest in that war was to not have a N Vietnamese flag in Saigon until after 1972. Just another fact from history that UG rewrote.

Lets see. Something like 10% of the US B-52 force was lost over N Vietnam. Was this to cause them to surrender? Of course not. Even Nixon had conceded that victory was not possible. The B-52s were deployed to force N Vietnam to negotiate (in earnest) in Paris. The B-52s were a last conventional military option - the war was going that badly. Nixon deployed it to force a stalemate. Knowing that, Nixon still sent tens of thousands of my generation to their death. You talk honorably about this man. Shame on you for rewriting history only because it suits your self serving opinions. Shame on you for having so much contempt for the American soldier.

UG still knows that war could have been won. He also rewrites history when it is convenient. His lying exposed earlier in this thread. He even tries to change history about a mythical Saddam / bin Laden alliance. How convenient when he can rewrite history at will.

Urbane Guerrilla probably thinks Iraq will eventually be conquered. "Mission Accomplished" or Deja Vue. It means the same thing when history is nothing more than pulp fiction.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

TW, you are very much at pains to misread what I write, and the Case Closed article is one familiar to me. What you antis just refuse to wrap your minds around is that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys -- but didn't himself do 9-11, and we who want to win this understand that. We also understand that Ba'athist Iraq was part of the overall problem we would have to solve. Just as Hitler didn't bomb Pearl Harbor but needed to be defeated, so with Saddam. It is not legitimate to insist that Saddam doesn't parallel Hitler's case: he does. Dictators are more alike than different -- these two even share a penchant for facial hair and uniforms. What to do about dictators is more similar than different case by case also.

While I don't necessarily think US forces will be there at the end, the terrs in Iraq are notable in achieving absolutely nothing now, and will in the end be defeated -- by the rest of Iraq. They have nothing to offer but murders in aid of returning to the previous tyranny. The rest of Iraq isn't interested, and won't allow it.

[tw]

When caught lying, then a liar can either apologize for his mistake, OR he can ignore the accusation. Urbane Guerrilla, caught rewriting history for a self serving agenda, instead posts

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

TW, you are very much at pains to misread what I write, and the Case Closed article is one familiar to me. What you antis just refuse to wrap your minds around is that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys -- but didn't himself do 9-11, and we who want to win this understand that.

The enemy of fundamentalist Islamics extremists (ie Al Qaeda) are secular governments. Since Urbane Guerrilla has been exposed lying about Vietnam, he now changes the topic to Saddam. He claims Saddam was hooked up with people who were Saddam's most dangerous enemies. Saddam of Iraq, Asad of Syria, Nasser and Sadat of Egypt, and Hussein of Jordan are all secular governments - targets of the same people that Urbane Guerrilla tells us that Saddam was, instead, allied with.

In "The World According to Urbane Guerrilla", enemies are allies? Same pulp fiction claimed that America could have easily won the Vietnam War. Same pulp fiction claims that the US only fought a "polite" war in Vietnam. Same pulp fiction invents myths as to why Ho Chi Minh asked to become a protectorate of the United States. Same pulp fiction that claimed the US was not forcing democracy on anyone (even though a 15 August US deadline is being imposed on the Iraqis). UG now pretends he did not invent those fictions.

This goes right to the personal character of Urbane Guerrilla. You advocate wasting of good American lives by justifying lies; inventing enemies; posting pulp fiction to cover up insufficient knowledge of history. Many good American died because a president also did same - for a self serving agenda. Why would Urbane Guerrilla disparage good American solidiers - of past and future? Your integrity and honesty is the question. UG doesn't even deny lying about history - especially when caught doing it repeatedly. Instead UG pretends those lies were never posted.

Saddam was not a threat. A well proven fact. Even George Jr no longer makes that claim that UG now posts. Still Urbane Guerrilla would promote a myth that has long since been proven wrong - "that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys". This way UG need not admit to lying about Vietnam.

Well UG - prove it. Don't wait for the translation. I am prepared to wait for hell to freeze over. Your next post, if you are an honest man, will prove "that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys". Show us that you are not just Rush Limbaugh high on hard drugs. Show us. Can I make the challenge any more obvious? Prove your accusation or admit to, again, posting more lies. You made the claim. Prove it. Show us "that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys".

[Urbane Guerrilla]

TW, you are not seeing the whole forest because you are fascinated with about three of its trees. If Islamoterrorism is to go away, its sponsors must be finished off.

Islamoterrorism doesn't happen without the say-so of Islamic governments or government entities. It keeps transpiring, for a somewhat far-flung instance, that Indonesian Islamoterrorists have covert ties with the Indonesian military. And just how many Islamic nations/governments are on the list of terrorist sponsors? Two that were recently knocked off that list are Afghanistan and Iraq. Still on it are Syria and Iran among others.

Your next post, if you are an honest man, will prove "that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys".

That was proven by the "Case Closed" article, which you were so kind as to link to and to exerpt from. Really, TW, your analysis of all this can most charitably be described as eccentric, and more clearly described as friggin' bonkers, and nobody thinks your silly personal accusations have any basis.

Same pulp fiction that claimed the US was not forcing democracy on anyone (even though a 15 August US deadline is being imposed on the Iraqis).

Let this stand for several other instances of a peculiar view of this. The Iraqis, having had the obstacle to democratization the Saddam régime constituted removed, are setting forth a constitution for a democracy, and unlike TW, they are not complaining about getting it done by mid-August. They figure, nothing loath, that a constitution might as well be drafted by a certain date and be ready for a plebiscite then. Imposed, quotha!

TW is driven by the insane belief that the United States must be the root of all evil, apparently because, well, it's the United States. So he goes hysterical whenever this anti-American orthodoxy is criticized, or, God or whatever forbid, challenged. As long as you use this for the basis of your thinking, TW, you can be nothing but wrong. And you still don't know any twentieth-century history. Telling me you do doesn't help you. I'm not crazy enough to believe it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

TW, you are not seeing the whole forest because you are fascinated with about three of its trees. If Islamoterrorism is to go away, its sponsors must be finished off.

Islamoterrorism doesn't happen without the say-so of Islamic governments or government entities. It keeps transpiring, for a somewhat far-flung instance, that Indonesian Islamoterrorists have covert ties with the Indonesian military. And just how many Islamic nations/governments are on the list of terrorist sponsors? Two that were recently knocked off that list are Afghanistan and Iraq. Still on it are Syria and Iran among others.

Your terrorist nation list is promoted to people who need not first learn history. Indonesia as a terrorist nation is clearly absurd; only for those who blindly believe; reality be damned. Only an extreme right wing agenda - to even promote hate and justify more wars - would make that claim.

Meanwhile, those 'Islamoterrorists' are a greater threat to the local secular government including Syria, Indonesia, Egypt, Syria, the many K'stan nations, Pakistan, western China, and Saudi Arabia. UG, learn from history rather than blindly believe what a drug addicted Rush Limbaugh tells you to preach.

Who almost killed the Prime Minister of Egypt? Who then later and successfully killed Nasser? Who was so close to killing Syria's Asad that Asad literally massacred something like all of 10,000 people in towns that were 'hotbeds' of 'Islamoterrorists'. What government supported and encouraged these 'Islamoterrorists' attacks? IOW why do you post facts that are invented - fictional - created to promote a political agenda much like the Nazis did in 1930s Germany and Milosevik did in 1990 Balkans?

IOW this is about the character and integrity of Urbane Guerrilla:

Don't wait for the translation. I am prepared to wait for hell to freeze over. Your next post - as a liar must do - avoided "that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys". Show us that you are not just Rush Limbaugh high on hard drugs. Casting blame on TW does not get UG out of this. Outright and intentional lying is the most unforgivable sin one can practice here. Prove "that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys". An honest and credible Urbane Guerrilla could prove "that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys". Prove it. Show us that you don't just rewrite history when it is convenient - that you have a shred of honesty inside you.

We are now stuck right here on the character and integrity of Urbane Guerrilla who refuses to: show us "that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys". How cold is it in hell? I don't need a forest to recognize lying. Show us that Urbane Guerrilla has some integrity. Answer the question.

[tw]

Least you forget:

Originally Posted by tw

Outright and intentional lying is the most unforgivable sin one can practice here.

[mrnoodle]

When you look at the antiwar rhetoric, the attempts to demonize a perfectly respectable SCOTUS candidate, and the general shrillness of the left for the last 5 years, something becomes more apparent every day. The only real platform the Democrats are running on these days is "sour grapes over the results of the last two elections".

If they put as much effort into finding real solutions as they did into trying to neutralize any and all Bush efforts, we might actually get somewhere.

[lookout123]

next time you see someone ranting because the poor blacks and mexicans are disproportionately fighting and dieing in the middle east - show them this.

for some reason i can't grab the actual chart, so you will have to follow the link. what i see is that of all the deaths in Iraq:

1,265 have been white
195 hispanic
185 black

not that you would hear that on the evening news.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by lookout123

next time you see someone ranting because the poor blacks and mexicans are disproportionately fighting and dieing in the middle east - show them this.

for some reason i can't grab the actual chart, so you will have to follow the link. what i see is that of all the deaths in Iraq:

1,265 have been white
195 hispanic
185 black

not that you would hear that on the evening news.

It's Flash so you'd have to do a screen grab.

[Hobbs]

Who the hell is ranting about blacks and hispanics disproportionately fighting in Iraq?!?!?!?!?!? My God! have we really run out of things to truely gripe about!!!??? What do these people think, that the war in Iraq is yet another underhanded way the "man" is beating the brother down?

[glatt]

As far as I know, lookout123 is the only one ranting about it. I haven't seen it anywhere else.

I've heard of people ranting about the disproportional number of blacks in Vietnam, but not Iraq. Maybe I'm sheltered. After all, I'm sure you can find someone somewhere to rant about any paricular issue.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Baer ruled that Saddam Hussein’s government was complicit in the September 11 attacks and that the Baathist government owed the plaintiffs a judgment of $104 million.

The way the American courts work they would have found the airlines complicit in the Sept.11th attacks if the Feds hadn't prevented it.