“There are people who would love to see America fight their war for them,” Kerry said. “But that is not their choice.”
– "U.S. coming under fire from Mideast allies, who see retrenchment", Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, 2014-01-24.
Finally, the U.S. is recognizing that it is not the world's policeman and it cannot stop every "bad guy" from harming the "good guys". Generally when we fight the "bad guys", many of the "good guys" resent the U.S. coming in and disrupting their country.
I often wonder why the U.S. has to "train" a government's soldiers and police in counter-insurgency or whatever. It seems the ragtag bad guys do quite well with AK-47s and IEDs than the government does with it more powerful weapons. Could it be that the soldiers and police are in it only because it is a job, they can extort people, and they really don't have much faith in the government?
I often wonder why we don't say to corrupt or ineffective leaders "Shape up or we ship out!"
Showing posts with label Al Qaeda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Al Qaeda. Show all posts
Monday, January 27, 2014
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Corporations, Water, and Al Qaeda
A relative reposted the following on her Facebook page:
"If Al Qaeda had poisoned the water of 300k people, we'd have already invaded the wrong country. Since it's a corporation, carry on. #TYTLive DubMasterC@DubMasterC"
She got it from Daily Kos's facebook page. The original source is https://twitter.com/DubMasterC/status/422869150604607490.
"If Al Qaeda had poisoned the water of 300k people, we'd have already invaded the wrong country. Since it's a corporation, carry on. #TYTLive DubMasterC@DubMasterC"
She got it from Daily Kos's facebook page. The original source is https://twitter.com/DubMasterC/status/422869150604607490.
Friday, January 17, 2014
Lies, damn lies, and misstatements
Much political hay is being made about President Obama saying that people could keep their current insurance. As thousands find that their current insurance is being cancelled, there is a clamor that Obama lied.
Did he really lie? That is, did he make a statement that he knew with certainty to be untrue? Or did he make a statement that he believed to be true given the information that he had?
Consider that any leader has to rely on the advice and information provided by hundreds of people. If that leader had to verify every piece of information he or she was given, would anything ever get done in government or business?
What Obama and his staff had no control over was all the insurance companies deciding it was not in their best interest to have people keep those older policies. I’ll leave that to historians to figure out who was right or wrong, truthful or deceitful.
Now the shoe is on “the other foot”. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey is accused of lying about the deliberate traffic jams caused around Fort Lee by his staff and associates. He had directly asked some of them if they had any involvement in the situation. They all said no.
Christie has worked with some of these people for years and has relied on them for good advice. Should he believe anything differently? If he was suspicious, how much time should he spend finding out more? If he did so, how many other things that he should attend to would be ignored.
If Christie was not actively involved in the traffic jams, he did make the mistake of being gleeful about Fort Lee’s problems. After all, the Democratic mayor did not support him in his reelection.
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman” is probably one of the most infamous lie and even damnedest lie ever made by a U.S. President. Bill Clinton later backed off that strong denial, but the Republicans jumped with joy over his predicament. Lots of federal money was spent on this investigation and that investigation and an impeachment.
But the whole mess rings hollow when Republicans have done similar acts and made similar denials. I wish politicians would spend more time on thoughtful evaluation of laws and policies and less on personal attacks. What a way to run a country!
Many have criticized President George W. Bush for a long string of lies about Iraq, for example Saddam Hussein’s stockpile of “weapons of mass destruction”. Now, was he just parroting what his advisors were telling him because of their own agendas or was he directly involved in creating these falsehoods? We may never know.
But I can guess about one misstatement that he made that has become infamous – his advice that in response to the World Trade Center attacks Americans should go shopping. It was a stupid remark, but consider its underlying meaning. The attacks were meant to disrupt the United States. If people went about their ordinary business, then the planners of the attack would have failed in their attempt to disrupt the country. In other words, if we shopped as we normally did, then the country would not have been disrupted as much as planned.
We probably all have experiences of sales people telling us what they think we want to hear, not what we need to know. Sometimes they withhold details; sometimes they really do lie; and sometimes they divert us. How often have you heard, “It’s a standard contract”? In other words, just sign, don’t bother reading it. Do you wonder why we had a mortgage crisis?
My favorite misdirection was decades ago when we bought a TV in a big box store. We told the salesman that we liked a particular model, and he replied that he had one in the back room. Only later did we see that as a ploy to get us to buy on the spot. Of course he had one in the backroom; he may have also had one dozen.
This whole column is a misdirection to write about an irate phone message I had last week. The caller was upset that I had spoken badly about Gannucci’s in my column of January 2. I was flabbergasted! I meant no such thing!
OK, let’s parse what I wrote to find the irritant. Remember that I was writing about going to a plant-based diet and doing my best to stick to it.
“Just my luck that every item on the menu had cheese and/or meat.” Many restaurants have meat, dairy, or eggs in most if not all of their menu choices.
“So I went with a turkey sandwich, figuring that was the leanest meat that I could get.” I thought that was a neutral statement. Maybe I should have said the turkey sandwich was delicious. It was, but is that relevant to that fact that I made a choice?
“The organizers of the monthly social plan to go back in January. I think I better call ahead to Gannucci’s.” If I want to join the group and would like to avoid meat, dairy, and eggs, I should ask the restaurant in advance if they have any alternatives. If not, maybe I’ll have a turkey sandwich again. I am a vegan not because I object to turkeys having their heads cut off but because I don’t like what the turkeys might do to me.
This was also published in the Duluth Reader, 2013-01-16 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/01/16/2766_lies_damn_lies_and_misstatements
Did he really lie? That is, did he make a statement that he knew with certainty to be untrue? Or did he make a statement that he believed to be true given the information that he had?
Consider that any leader has to rely on the advice and information provided by hundreds of people. If that leader had to verify every piece of information he or she was given, would anything ever get done in government or business?
What Obama and his staff had no control over was all the insurance companies deciding it was not in their best interest to have people keep those older policies. I’ll leave that to historians to figure out who was right or wrong, truthful or deceitful.
Now the shoe is on “the other foot”. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey is accused of lying about the deliberate traffic jams caused around Fort Lee by his staff and associates. He had directly asked some of them if they had any involvement in the situation. They all said no.
Christie has worked with some of these people for years and has relied on them for good advice. Should he believe anything differently? If he was suspicious, how much time should he spend finding out more? If he did so, how many other things that he should attend to would be ignored.
If Christie was not actively involved in the traffic jams, he did make the mistake of being gleeful about Fort Lee’s problems. After all, the Democratic mayor did not support him in his reelection.
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman” is probably one of the most infamous lie and even damnedest lie ever made by a U.S. President. Bill Clinton later backed off that strong denial, but the Republicans jumped with joy over his predicament. Lots of federal money was spent on this investigation and that investigation and an impeachment.
But the whole mess rings hollow when Republicans have done similar acts and made similar denials. I wish politicians would spend more time on thoughtful evaluation of laws and policies and less on personal attacks. What a way to run a country!
Many have criticized President George W. Bush for a long string of lies about Iraq, for example Saddam Hussein’s stockpile of “weapons of mass destruction”. Now, was he just parroting what his advisors were telling him because of their own agendas or was he directly involved in creating these falsehoods? We may never know.
But I can guess about one misstatement that he made that has become infamous – his advice that in response to the World Trade Center attacks Americans should go shopping. It was a stupid remark, but consider its underlying meaning. The attacks were meant to disrupt the United States. If people went about their ordinary business, then the planners of the attack would have failed in their attempt to disrupt the country. In other words, if we shopped as we normally did, then the country would not have been disrupted as much as planned.
We probably all have experiences of sales people telling us what they think we want to hear, not what we need to know. Sometimes they withhold details; sometimes they really do lie; and sometimes they divert us. How often have you heard, “It’s a standard contract”? In other words, just sign, don’t bother reading it. Do you wonder why we had a mortgage crisis?
My favorite misdirection was decades ago when we bought a TV in a big box store. We told the salesman that we liked a particular model, and he replied that he had one in the back room. Only later did we see that as a ploy to get us to buy on the spot. Of course he had one in the backroom; he may have also had one dozen.
This whole column is a misdirection to write about an irate phone message I had last week. The caller was upset that I had spoken badly about Gannucci’s in my column of January 2. I was flabbergasted! I meant no such thing!
OK, let’s parse what I wrote to find the irritant. Remember that I was writing about going to a plant-based diet and doing my best to stick to it.
“Just my luck that every item on the menu had cheese and/or meat.” Many restaurants have meat, dairy, or eggs in most if not all of their menu choices.
“So I went with a turkey sandwich, figuring that was the leanest meat that I could get.” I thought that was a neutral statement. Maybe I should have said the turkey sandwich was delicious. It was, but is that relevant to that fact that I made a choice?
“The organizers of the monthly social plan to go back in January. I think I better call ahead to Gannucci’s.” If I want to join the group and would like to avoid meat, dairy, and eggs, I should ask the restaurant in advance if they have any alternatives. If not, maybe I’ll have a turkey sandwich again. I am a vegan not because I object to turkeys having their heads cut off but because I don’t like what the turkeys might do to me.
This was also published in the Duluth Reader, 2013-01-16 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/01/16/2766_lies_damn_lies_and_misstatements
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Quote of the day - civilian control out of control
"[T]he notion of civilian control of the military became meaningless, since civilians were the leading militarists."
- Michael Mann, "Incoherent Empire", quoted by Andrew J. Bacevich in "The New American Militarism".
This was in reference to the reaction to 9/11. Same section states that military felt it failed to protect country against attack, but is it the military's job to stop criminals?
- Michael Mann, "Incoherent Empire", quoted by Andrew J. Bacevich in "The New American Militarism".
This was in reference to the reaction to 9/11. Same section states that military felt it failed to protect country against attack, but is it the military's job to stop criminals?
Thursday, May 09, 2013
Export cones, not drones
Once upon a time, Yemen had rich areas for growing grapes, pomegranates, oranges, and the famed Yemeni coffee. Then came oil in Saudi Arabia and Yemeni men flocked there for work. The women cut trees for firewood and the terraces eroded for lack of maintenance. Water which once could be found at 60 meters is not found until 850 meters or more. Now Yemenis fight over water. See "Postcard from Yemen", Thomas Friedman, New York Times, 2013-05-08.
"Trees have the deepest system of root in soil. They evaporate water from sometimes 50 meters deep level of soil. It increase humidity in air and probabilities of rains, dew-sources of water." Comment by mioffe2000 in response to "Postcard from Yemen".
This comment got me thinking about "The Man Who Planted Trees" about a shepherd who planted acorns over a wide area that had been deforested by charcoal burners. The land was dry and suitable only for grazing sheep.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Planted_Trees, the story is a work of fiction. However, people all over the world have planted millions of trees in many countries to stop desertification and alleviate global warming. This article mentions a few of these projects.
What would the effect be on world peace if the U.S. exported cones instead of drones to some of the trouble spots of the world. Well, not exactly cones because evergreens are not suitable for many areas. Actually, for a small fraction of the military budget, the U.S. could send teams to plant trees of any size, from seeds to semi-mature trees a few meters tall. It would take a few years to bring better rainfall back to areas where water is scarce. More available water would reduce tensions among various groups and go a long way to reducing the hold terrorists have on some areas.
"Trees have the deepest system of root in soil. They evaporate water from sometimes 50 meters deep level of soil. It increase humidity in air and probabilities of rains, dew-sources of water." Comment by mioffe2000 in response to "Postcard from Yemen".
This comment got me thinking about "The Man Who Planted Trees" about a shepherd who planted acorns over a wide area that had been deforested by charcoal burners. The land was dry and suitable only for grazing sheep.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Planted_Trees, the story is a work of fiction. However, people all over the world have planted millions of trees in many countries to stop desertification and alleviate global warming. This article mentions a few of these projects.
What would the effect be on world peace if the U.S. exported cones instead of drones to some of the trouble spots of the world. Well, not exactly cones because evergreens are not suitable for many areas. Actually, for a small fraction of the military budget, the U.S. could send teams to plant trees of any size, from seeds to semi-mature trees a few meters tall. It would take a few years to bring better rainfall back to areas where water is scarce. More available water would reduce tensions among various groups and go a long way to reducing the hold terrorists have on some areas.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Contrasting counters to radical Islam
The January-February issue of Utne Reader has two articles about wildly contrasting ideas about countering radical Islam.
The first is "Jihad Against Islam, America's right wing is on a witch hunt, and they're tying Muslims to the stake" by Robert Steinback, from Intelligence Report, a publication of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
It is a summary of how a large number of people in the U.S. believe that all Muslims are sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and that "mainstream Islam advocates violence against non-Muslims". Much of this is being fueled by a "coterie of core activists". Max Blumenthal called it "the Great Islamophobic Crusade." Their complaint about the Islamic center near the World Trade Center gained support from Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. The assumption of these modern Crusaders is that the likes of Osama Bin Laden are interpreting the Koran correctly.
The second is "Bollywood's Soft Power, India's hugely popular films wage a cultural war on extremism" by Shikha Dalmia. The article was original published in The Daily. The Utne article is excerpted from Reason, a libertarian magazine.
Bollywood is "India's flamboyant film industry", and its films are shown all over Asia from Indonesia to Dubai. Dalmia likens the effect of Bollywood to extremism to the effect of rock and roll on the demise of the Soviet Union. It wasn't Reagan that brought down the Berlin Wall but the Beatles, and "Mikhail Gorbachev acknowledged to Paul McCartney that the Beatles paved the way for perestroika and glasnost".
Bollywood's allure is that it is based on Eastern values and that the actors look like the viewers. Some countries like Dubai embrace Bollywood. Others that are trying to control all aspects of life, like Pakistan, "are trying to purge Bollywood from their soil". The harder they try to limit Bollywood, the greater its popularity.
BTW, Bollywood's "three highest-grossing male leads are Muslims".
These two articles illustrate the old saw about catching more flies with honey than vinegar. And you would think that the intellectuals in the anti-Islam jihad would have learned that all the vinegar (and money and lives) that have been sloshed around in the name of defense of the U.S. would have caught on by now to the fallacy of their approach.
The first is "Jihad Against Islam, America's right wing is on a witch hunt, and they're tying Muslims to the stake" by Robert Steinback, from Intelligence Report, a publication of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
It is a summary of how a large number of people in the U.S. believe that all Muslims are sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and that "mainstream Islam advocates violence against non-Muslims". Much of this is being fueled by a "coterie of core activists". Max Blumenthal called it "the Great Islamophobic Crusade." Their complaint about the Islamic center near the World Trade Center gained support from Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. The assumption of these modern Crusaders is that the likes of Osama Bin Laden are interpreting the Koran correctly.
The second is "Bollywood's Soft Power, India's hugely popular films wage a cultural war on extremism" by Shikha Dalmia. The article was original published in The Daily. The Utne article is excerpted from Reason, a libertarian magazine.
Bollywood is "India's flamboyant film industry", and its films are shown all over Asia from Indonesia to Dubai. Dalmia likens the effect of Bollywood to extremism to the effect of rock and roll on the demise of the Soviet Union. It wasn't Reagan that brought down the Berlin Wall but the Beatles, and "Mikhail Gorbachev acknowledged to Paul McCartney that the Beatles paved the way for perestroika and glasnost".
Bollywood's allure is that it is based on Eastern values and that the actors look like the viewers. Some countries like Dubai embrace Bollywood. Others that are trying to control all aspects of life, like Pakistan, "are trying to purge Bollywood from their soil". The harder they try to limit Bollywood, the greater its popularity.
BTW, Bollywood's "three highest-grossing male leads are Muslims".
These two articles illustrate the old saw about catching more flies with honey than vinegar. And you would think that the intellectuals in the anti-Islam jihad would have learned that all the vinegar (and money and lives) that have been sloshed around in the name of defense of the U.S. would have caught on by now to the fallacy of their approach.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
What 9/11 should have taught ALL of us
First, before the über patriots criticize me, let me question Al Qaeda.
What do you hope to gain? You are like flies or mosquitos in a house. You annoy many people, but many of you will get swatted without gaining anything meaningful. Sure you may bite a few people, but the people go on about their business. You think you speak for all Islam, but you speak for all Islam as much as the Ku Klux Klan or the Crusaders speak for all Christianity.
If you are so sure that you have Allah on your side, why do you say "Inshallah" ("God willing")? If you have doubt that Allah wants you to succeed, how can you be sure you are doing Allah's will in the first place? And if hundreds and thousands of imams and ayatollahs write volumes of commentary, often disputing each other, how can you be so certain?
If you're so interested in protecting Islam and Muslims, why do you kill those who disagree with you and why do you instigate others to blindly strike back at Muslim countries? You gain nothing but chaos, but doesn't your Allah want order and harmony?
Second, many of those who are justifiably disturbed by the attacks of 9/11 have reacted like somebody who is paranoid about flies in the house; they are willing to knock over furniture and break windows to kill a single fly. These people have reacted so wildly that they are ready to invade countries that have no connection with Al Qaeda or think that invading the base of "The Base" will eliminate it. Ten years later they have not succeeded in eliminating the threat; quite the contrary, they have increased the number of terrorist wannabes to levels where the costs are budget-breaking.
In invading other countries, these fly-swatters didn't learn from history. They sent into foreign countries armies that were not wanted, who didn't speak the language, and who didn't understand the culture. Have they forgotten their own history? Our predecessors disliked being governed by a country thousands of miles away, and that country shared our language and culture. Of course, that country made matters worse by sending mercenaries who didn't speak our language. Have they forgotten the French Resistance? At least many of the Germans spoke French. But as soon as the Germans killed or captured a leader of the Resistance, somebody took his or her place.
The intolerant among us are playing right into Al Qaeda's hands. By treating all Muslims as Al Qaeda they are indirectly recruiting more Al Qaeda sympathizers. Fortunately, like most Christians are not interested in going on a Crusade, most Muslims are not interested in going on an Al Qaeda-style jihad.
Many opportunities have been lost in neutralizing or marginalizing the likes of Al Qaeda. What if the State Department had one-tenth the military budget to train people in languages, cultures, and negotiation? Wouldn't this undercut support for Al Qaeda more than military action that "proves" Al Qaeda "right" in its criticism and rhetoric?
Mourn the Christians, Jews, Muslims, and non-believers who were in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2011, but also give serious thought to how we can bring about a world where nobody resorts to violence to bring about their wishes.
What do you hope to gain? You are like flies or mosquitos in a house. You annoy many people, but many of you will get swatted without gaining anything meaningful. Sure you may bite a few people, but the people go on about their business. You think you speak for all Islam, but you speak for all Islam as much as the Ku Klux Klan or the Crusaders speak for all Christianity.
If you are so sure that you have Allah on your side, why do you say "Inshallah" ("God willing")? If you have doubt that Allah wants you to succeed, how can you be sure you are doing Allah's will in the first place? And if hundreds and thousands of imams and ayatollahs write volumes of commentary, often disputing each other, how can you be so certain?
If you're so interested in protecting Islam and Muslims, why do you kill those who disagree with you and why do you instigate others to blindly strike back at Muslim countries? You gain nothing but chaos, but doesn't your Allah want order and harmony?
Second, many of those who are justifiably disturbed by the attacks of 9/11 have reacted like somebody who is paranoid about flies in the house; they are willing to knock over furniture and break windows to kill a single fly. These people have reacted so wildly that they are ready to invade countries that have no connection with Al Qaeda or think that invading the base of "The Base" will eliminate it. Ten years later they have not succeeded in eliminating the threat; quite the contrary, they have increased the number of terrorist wannabes to levels where the costs are budget-breaking.
In invading other countries, these fly-swatters didn't learn from history. They sent into foreign countries armies that were not wanted, who didn't speak the language, and who didn't understand the culture. Have they forgotten their own history? Our predecessors disliked being governed by a country thousands of miles away, and that country shared our language and culture. Of course, that country made matters worse by sending mercenaries who didn't speak our language. Have they forgotten the French Resistance? At least many of the Germans spoke French. But as soon as the Germans killed or captured a leader of the Resistance, somebody took his or her place.
The intolerant among us are playing right into Al Qaeda's hands. By treating all Muslims as Al Qaeda they are indirectly recruiting more Al Qaeda sympathizers. Fortunately, like most Christians are not interested in going on a Crusade, most Muslims are not interested in going on an Al Qaeda-style jihad.
Many opportunities have been lost in neutralizing or marginalizing the likes of Al Qaeda. What if the State Department had one-tenth the military budget to train people in languages, cultures, and negotiation? Wouldn't this undercut support for Al Qaeda more than military action that "proves" Al Qaeda "right" in its criticism and rhetoric?
Mourn the Christians, Jews, Muslims, and non-believers who were in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2011, but also give serious thought to how we can bring about a world where nobody resorts to violence to bring about their wishes.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Ku Klux Klan = Al Qaeda?
Too many people think Islam is a violent religion because of the actions of a few. But one could think the same of Christianity. Does the Ku Klux Klan or Torquemada represent Christianity?
The Ku Klux Klan terrorized "uppity niggers" for a long list of imagined crimes and terrorized whites from opposing the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan used the cross as its symbol and even corrupted it by burning crosses in the yards of those who opposed them. They purported to be defending Christianity, but it wasn't the religion of Jesus.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban terrorize all those who don't agree with them for a long list of imagined crimes. They have used the Koran as their symbol, but ignore all those parts that don't fit their rigid view.
The Grand Inquisitor Torquemada tortured many people on real or imagined threats to Catholicism. Jews, Muslims, and Protestants were tortured to get them to confess to not following the "true belief". Torquemada worked with the blessing of King Phillip of Spain; religious orthodoxy was a means to quell dissent with his policies.
The Iranian government tortures many on real or imagined threats to Islam or its national security. But isn't it behaving like King Phillip? Religious orthodoxy is a means to quell dissent with its policies.
There are far too many historical cases of "bad apples" of any major religion; it makes it very easy to argue that any religion is violent.
What doesn't make the news is the multitude of people of all religious faiths who follow the example of the Good Samaritan, offering help to those in need regardless of differences. On the one hand we have Afghans offering tea to American soldiers who broke down their doors; on the other hand we have Americans sending money to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees for Pakistani flood victims.
The Ku Klux Klan terrorized "uppity niggers" for a long list of imagined crimes and terrorized whites from opposing the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan used the cross as its symbol and even corrupted it by burning crosses in the yards of those who opposed them. They purported to be defending Christianity, but it wasn't the religion of Jesus.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban terrorize all those who don't agree with them for a long list of imagined crimes. They have used the Koran as their symbol, but ignore all those parts that don't fit their rigid view.
The Grand Inquisitor Torquemada tortured many people on real or imagined threats to Catholicism. Jews, Muslims, and Protestants were tortured to get them to confess to not following the "true belief". Torquemada worked with the blessing of King Phillip of Spain; religious orthodoxy was a means to quell dissent with his policies.
The Iranian government tortures many on real or imagined threats to Islam or its national security. But isn't it behaving like King Phillip? Religious orthodoxy is a means to quell dissent with its policies.
There are far too many historical cases of "bad apples" of any major religion; it makes it very easy to argue that any religion is violent.
What doesn't make the news is the multitude of people of all religious faiths who follow the example of the Good Samaritan, offering help to those in need regardless of differences. On the one hand we have Afghans offering tea to American soldiers who broke down their doors; on the other hand we have Americans sending money to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees for Pakistani flood victims.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
A must-read on counter-terrorism
I've been toying with ideas about using non-lethal means to counter terrorism, including bombing insurgent hideouts with honey, out-Koraning the jihadists, and making the whole movement foolish in the eyes of its potential supporters.
The last idea is already well underway. See "Countering Terrorism With Mockery", Robert Mackey, New York Times, 2010-07-15.
It includes some clips from two movies that show wannabe jihadists as incompetent.
But one does have to be careful, those who feel insecure can lash out at those who reinforce their insecurity. Pakistan has banned "Tere Bin Laden", a mock interview with a Bin Laden impersonator, because of concerns of a revenge attack.
The last idea is already well underway. See "Countering Terrorism With Mockery", Robert Mackey, New York Times, 2010-07-15.
It includes some clips from two movies that show wannabe jihadists as incompetent.
But one does have to be careful, those who feel insecure can lash out at those who reinforce their insecurity. Pakistan has banned "Tere Bin Laden", a mock interview with a Bin Laden impersonator, because of concerns of a revenge attack.
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Afghanistan - Doing too much for too little?
Fareed Zakaria thinks that the fight against the Taliban is overreach with little result. He likens it to fighting Italy after Germany has been defeated. See "Fareed Zakaria Criticizes 'Disproportionate' Afghanistan War on CNN".
We should also look at the reverse situation. How many Americans would fight a foreign invader? Suppose there was an Anti-China League that started hitting Chinese targets. The Chinese, tired of the "American" terrorism, would invade the U.S. with overwhelming force. Many Americans would resist, even if they did not like the Anti-China League.
For what many call a "Christian" nation, we seem incapable of following the second greatest commandment - do unto others what you would have them do unto you.
Also, why does the Afghan army need so much training when the Taliban has such minimal training? If the U.S. can't beat the Taliban with all of its sophisticated training and weapons, will an Afghan army beat the Taliban with the same sophisticated training and weapons? Either a sufficient number of Afghans are opposed to the Taliban to fight the Taliban on similar terms or too few Afghans are willing to risk their lives against the Taliban.
We should also look at the reverse situation. How many Americans would fight a foreign invader? Suppose there was an Anti-China League that started hitting Chinese targets. The Chinese, tired of the "American" terrorism, would invade the U.S. with overwhelming force. Many Americans would resist, even if they did not like the Anti-China League.
For what many call a "Christian" nation, we seem incapable of following the second greatest commandment - do unto others what you would have them do unto you.
Also, why does the Afghan army need so much training when the Taliban has such minimal training? If the U.S. can't beat the Taliban with all of its sophisticated training and weapons, will an Afghan army beat the Taliban with the same sophisticated training and weapons? Either a sufficient number of Afghans are opposed to the Taliban to fight the Taliban on similar terms or too few Afghans are willing to risk their lives against the Taliban.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Terrorists aren't the only ones fanning flames
There is such a hew and cry about closing Guantanamo and putting the suspected terrorists held there in U.S. prisons, one would think that an Al Qaeda army was poised to invade and occupy the U.S.
When I was researching "The apologists of torture are torturing us" I came across the fact that Zacharias Moussaoui was being held in a U.S. prison. I also assumed that those arrested for the first World Trade Center plot were still in U.S. Prisons.
Today I read in the Washington Post, that quite a rogues' gallery of convicted terrorists are being held in a Federal prison in Florence, Colorado. The number given in the article is thirty-three. See "Supermax Prisons in U.S. Already Hold International Terrorists", Washington Post, 2009-05-22
Another thing to remember is we don't know for sure all of those labeled terrorists are actually terrorists. All we know is that some in the Federal government have called them terrorists. If the Federal government supposedly does so many other things wrong, how can we be sure it has really caught terrorists?
When I was researching "The apologists of torture are torturing us" I came across the fact that Zacharias Moussaoui was being held in a U.S. prison. I also assumed that those arrested for the first World Trade Center plot were still in U.S. Prisons.
Today I read in the Washington Post, that quite a rogues' gallery of convicted terrorists are being held in a Federal prison in Florence, Colorado. The number given in the article is thirty-three. See "Supermax Prisons in U.S. Already Hold International Terrorists", Washington Post, 2009-05-22
Another thing to remember is we don't know for sure all of those labeled terrorists are actually terrorists. All we know is that some in the Federal government have called them terrorists. If the Federal government supposedly does so many other things wrong, how can we be sure it has really caught terrorists?
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The apologists of torture are torturing us
Commentators, such as Charles Krauthammer, "The Torture Debate, Continued", Washington Post, 2009-05-15 (Reprinted in Star Tribune, 2009-05-19) keep painting a scary scenario on how torture would prevent a terrorist attack, "the ticking time bomb" scenario.
In this scenario the authorities "know" there is a plot to do some dastardly deed, they have captured a suspect that they believe is involved in the plot, they believe they can only get details about the plot by torturing the suspect, and when the suspect reveals these details, they will be able to successfully foil the plot.
Like Krauthammer, they offer a real example in which they claim torture worked.
Unfortunately, there are no guarantees on any part of this scenario.
Some in the Clinton administration knew that Al Qaeda was planning an attack on the U.S. but didn't know exactly what. This information was given to the Bush administration and not followed up at high levels. See "Bush Administration's First Memo on al-Qaeda Declassified" and "Know thine enemy".
Some flight schools were suspicious of some of their students, for example, Zacarias Moussaoui, and reported them to the FBI. The local FBI office acted on these suspicions, but the Washington office denied permission to search Moussaoui's computer. It is uncertain how much Moussaoui knew about the 9/11 plot, but earlier action may have led to other Al Qaeda members.
Suppose Moussaoui had been tortured in order to reveal more details of the 9/11 plot. First, how much did he really know about that specific plot? Second, since he changed his story so many times, admitting guilt and denying guilt, could anything he said be believed? If he was to be part of the 9/11 plot, would he have admitted sufficient details under torture to foil the plot.
Years ago I heard a story about a Norwegian resistance member who was captured by the Germans. They knew he was involved with others and wanted to know their whereabouts. His interrogator drove a screwdriver into his knee and twisted, repeatedly. Despite the great pain, the Norwegian held out until he knew his friends, who were escaping Norway before being caught, were safely at sea.
So, for torture to successfully foil a plot, you have to know the plot exists, you have to know a captured suspect really knows sufficient details about the plot, and you have to be sure that he will reveal, under torture, sufficient details about the plot in a timely fashion. That is a very slender thread to hang the security of the nation on.
In this scenario the authorities "know" there is a plot to do some dastardly deed, they have captured a suspect that they believe is involved in the plot, they believe they can only get details about the plot by torturing the suspect, and when the suspect reveals these details, they will be able to successfully foil the plot.
Like Krauthammer, they offer a real example in which they claim torture worked.
Unfortunately, there are no guarantees on any part of this scenario.
Some in the Clinton administration knew that Al Qaeda was planning an attack on the U.S. but didn't know exactly what. This information was given to the Bush administration and not followed up at high levels. See "Bush Administration's First Memo on al-Qaeda Declassified" and "Know thine enemy".
Some flight schools were suspicious of some of their students, for example, Zacarias Moussaoui, and reported them to the FBI. The local FBI office acted on these suspicions, but the Washington office denied permission to search Moussaoui's computer. It is uncertain how much Moussaoui knew about the 9/11 plot, but earlier action may have led to other Al Qaeda members.
Suppose Moussaoui had been tortured in order to reveal more details of the 9/11 plot. First, how much did he really know about that specific plot? Second, since he changed his story so many times, admitting guilt and denying guilt, could anything he said be believed? If he was to be part of the 9/11 plot, would he have admitted sufficient details under torture to foil the plot.
Years ago I heard a story about a Norwegian resistance member who was captured by the Germans. They knew he was involved with others and wanted to know their whereabouts. His interrogator drove a screwdriver into his knee and twisted, repeatedly. Despite the great pain, the Norwegian held out until he knew his friends, who were escaping Norway before being caught, were safely at sea.
So, for torture to successfully foil a plot, you have to know the plot exists, you have to know a captured suspect really knows sufficient details about the plot, and you have to be sure that he will reveal, under torture, sufficient details about the plot in a timely fashion. That is a very slender thread to hang the security of the nation on.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Terrorism thrives where law doesn't exist
President George Bush sent many off to create democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he neglected to do much about the lack of democracy in Pakistan. With the reinstatement of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, many Pakistanis are hoping that the rule of law will return to Pakistan. See "Reinstated, Chief Justice Bears Hopes of Pakistan", New York Times, 2009-03-29
Others are not so optimistic. Corruption is rampant in Pakistan and the ability or even willingness of the top to reign corruption in is almost non-existent. Reporters have been killed, promises have been made to find the killers, and nothing is done. See"Our Lawless Land", Dawn, a Pakistani English Language newspaper, 2009-03-29.
Others are not so optimistic. Corruption is rampant in Pakistan and the ability or even willingness of the top to reign corruption in is almost non-existent. Reporters have been killed, promises have been made to find the killers, and nothing is done. See"Our Lawless Land", Dawn, a Pakistani English Language newspaper, 2009-03-29.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Has George Bush made you safer?
We were considering a trip to visit friends and relatives in Cleveland, southeast Pennsylvania, the Washington DC area, and Arkansas, with stops at a few other places of interest in the South.
After reading Frank Rich's column on the Al Qaeda threat of a nuclear attack (New York Times, February 25, 2007), we have reconsidered our decision. We don't want to be anywhere near New York City, Philadelphia, Washington, Atlanta, or New Orleans, all potential targets because commerce, government, or shipping.
We, as a nation, have gotten ourselves into this mess because we elect politicians more on personality than substance, because we fall into the trap of wanting to be "strong on defense", and because we totally ignore diplomacy. How could diplomacy stop Al Qaeda? It won't directly, but it sure would garner us more allies and their resources to find and capture criminals like Al Qaeda.
Bush completely blew the struggle against the likes of Al Qaeda with his misdirected war in Iraq which increased the size of "The Enemy" without a commensurate increase in the size of "Our Allies".
Is there anything in Bush's malfeasance that is a high crime or misdemeanor that would be grounds for impeachment? We can't replace him with Cheney either. That leaves Nancy Pelosi, but I don't have any confidence in politicians who practice partisan politics rather than governance and statecraft.
After reading Frank Rich's column on the Al Qaeda threat of a nuclear attack (New York Times, February 25, 2007), we have reconsidered our decision. We don't want to be anywhere near New York City, Philadelphia, Washington, Atlanta, or New Orleans, all potential targets because commerce, government, or shipping.
We, as a nation, have gotten ourselves into this mess because we elect politicians more on personality than substance, because we fall into the trap of wanting to be "strong on defense", and because we totally ignore diplomacy. How could diplomacy stop Al Qaeda? It won't directly, but it sure would garner us more allies and their resources to find and capture criminals like Al Qaeda.
Bush completely blew the struggle against the likes of Al Qaeda with his misdirected war in Iraq which increased the size of "The Enemy" without a commensurate increase in the size of "Our Allies".
Is there anything in Bush's malfeasance that is a high crime or misdemeanor that would be grounds for impeachment? We can't replace him with Cheney either. That leaves Nancy Pelosi, but I don't have any confidence in politicians who practice partisan politics rather than governance and statecraft.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)