What the Heck is Bin Laden's Game Plan???

[Sharwood]

Ah, yes - The spread of democracy in the mideast - exactly what Bin Laden wants. Now I get it! Bin Laden = freedom fighter/liberator of the people. Cool.

Proposing that Bin Laden wants Islam to get a beat down and liberal democracies to replace Islamic States is rich. It puts Bin Laden in the Bush camp, as a warmonger. It makes clear that your enemies should be those who start wars. Bin Laden and Bush had the SAME plans... Get the US to invade Iraq. In fact, they were probably conspiring. Bin Laden = Bush.

So there you have it: the "bad" guys want war. But we don't! We're not Bush and we're not Bin Laden. We know that war is BAD. Even if the war liberates, right?

At least you're not just being a smart-a*se to me. What's the matter, too many big words? Or is it because he mentioned the same "insignificant" terrorists groups in Germany and Italy as I did in that other thread?

 

[Ecofarm]

@Den Valdron brilliant.

Do you major in Middle Eastern studies or something?

Try checking Michael Scheuer.

 

[Den Valdron]

Ah, yes - The spread of democracy in the mideast - exactly what Bin Laden wants. Now I get it! Bin Laden = freedom fighter/liberator of the people. Cool.

Proposing that Bin Laden wants Islam to get a beat down and liberal democracies to replace Islamic States is rich. It puts Bin Laden in the Bush camp, as a warmonger. It makes clear that your enemies should be those who start wars. Bin Laden and Bush had the SAME plans... Get the US to invade Iraq. In fact, they were probably conspiring. Bin Laden = Bush.

So there you have it: the "bad" guys want war. But we don't! We're not Bush and we're not Bin Laden. We know that war is BAD. Even if the war liberates, right?

I'm not exactly sure what you are going on about. But that's nothing new.

Bin Laden certainly doesn't want Democracy in the middle east, or at least, not the sort of 'separation of church and state/inalienable personal rights' Democracy that we think of. To the extent that Bin Laden endorses any form of 'democracy' (and I've never heard him discuss this at great length), it's a 'theocratic democracy' where power is in the hands of a religious/political oligarchy and voting is a show of faith.

On the other hand, Bush doesn't particularly want Democracy either. He was all set to install Chalabi as an 'elected' friendly Dictator, but that died on the order paper when it became clear Chalabi, Allawi and others had no following within Iraq. Let's face it, looking back at all the chances that were thrown his way, its amazing that Chalabi flubbed it.

Bush's committment to Democracy is kind of mixed. On the one hand, he supported Lebanese democracy in its uprising against Syria in the 'Cedar Revolution.' On the other hand, he crapped all over that Lebanese democracy when Israel decided to let the dogs out. On the one hand, he supported Palestinian elections. On the other hand, he worked hard to overthrow the results of those elections when it didn't turn out the way they wanted. Iran has flawed elections, but the US threatens to bomb them. Mushareff is a dictator working uneasily with elected officials, but Bush supports Mushareff.

Y'see the trouble with Democracy in the middle east is that we (the west) are getting a much better deal from Monarchies and Dictatorships than we'd ever get from Democracies. So its in our interests not to rock that boat. States do whats in their interests.

 

[Den Valdron]

@Den Valdron brilliant.

Do you major in Middle Eastern studies or something?

Thank you. I took my undergraduate degree in International politics. But mostly, I think its a youthful background as a mechanic and tradesperson. Step one is always trying to figure out how and why things work.

 

[Ecofarm]

On the other hand, Bush doesn't particularly want Democracy either.

I don't think Bush is worried about the US making a buck from totalitarian states. The US makes a pretty good buck working with the EU, psuedo-democracies in S. America, and semi-free states around the world.

This idea that the president, or even the common american, would favor profit over freedom is a demonization. Sure, people do not generally care about that which they do not see; but, given an informed choice, I think the president and the average american does, particularly, want democracy for everyone.

Bush, and the US, have plenty of money. The US is not exaclty making zillions over there in Iraq. If scoring a buck was the objective the US has failed (how many billions per day are being spent?). If scoring democracy was the objective, then progress has been significant.

With the US investment towards democracy in the hell-hole totalitarian mideast, it's something to say the US people/Bush are not particularily interested in democracy. Who spends more blood and treasure for it??

You act as if the US installs temporary dictators within democratic frameworks in order to get good deals. Well, where's the good deal? People are talking about a pull-out, so time is fleeting... we need a deal... we spent ALOT... Iraq better push that "deal" button soon or it is an economic disaster. We always knew it would be and we did it anyway because it was the right thing to do.

No deal? We eat this cost?? Ok, and you say it was about good business. If that is remotely true, I want some oil soon and I don't care if it means schools in Iraq do not get built.

 

[Sharwood]

I'm not exactly sure what you are going on about. But that's nothing new.

I think he was just mad because I shot down his theory in the other terrorism thread, using the Red Brigades and Baader-Meinhoff as examples. He referred to them - and the IRA - as "insignificant." He even implied that they didn't exist. Then you had to go and use them yourself! Why I say, you truly are a devil, Mr Valdron.

EDIT: Or seeing his next post, maybe he just doesn't like anyone refusing to tow the American line?

 

[Ecofarm]

Much better to be talked about than to. Thanks and keep up the good work.

And don't forget to check under your bed for the Red Brigade.

Regarding the implication that these groups do not exist:

And a group that produced the guys behind the Oklahoma City Bombing is something people should be afraid of, at least to an extent. As for the IRA, well, they're essentially dead, but again, if you think no-one considers them a threat, your head must be where the doth not shine.

(bolding mine)

But The Michigan Militia is coming!

I better pull my head out before MM bombs me and the IRA seizes control of England. Seriously? If I am to fear MM, then Timmy has won, hasn't he? You really think the IRA is a threat? Do you think anyone is afraid of MM or thinks the IRA is a threat, besides you? Don't you see where this sort of conversational obstructionism goes in regard to terrorism... What about the US gubment? They're terrorists too, right? Tin hat? Roger, building compound.

I'm not the kind of guy who sees terrorism everywhere I look. I'm more into focusing on the ones who kill themselves in order to kill civilians. And none of those come from democracies. /threadjack

 

[Den Valdron]

I don't think Bush is worried about the US making a buck from totalitarian states. The US makes a pretty good buck working with the EU, psuedo-democracies in S. America, and semi-free states around the world.

States, including the United States, look after their own interests, first nd foremost. The United States, including Mr. Bush's administration, has a long history of tolerating or supporting dictatorships because these dictatorships cater to or advance America's interests. It's just the way things are. Call it human nature.

This idea that the president, or even the common american, would favor profit over freedom is a demonization. Sure, people do not generally care about that which they do not see; but, given an informed choice, I think the president and the average american does, particularly, want democracy for everyone.

Does this mean that the United States would prefer an anti-American democratic regime in Saudi Arabia or a pro-American monarchist dictatorship?

Bush, and the US, have plenty of money. The US is not exaclty making zillions over there in Iraq. If scoring a buck was the objective the US has failed (how many billions per day are being spent?). If scoring democracy was the objective, then progress has been significant.

You're kidding right. First of all its not necessarily about scoring money. It's advancing national interest. Money is a tool. Sometimes its a reward. But its not the total picture.

As for 'significant progress' in scoring democracy... that's just some joke, right? Right now, the US is opposing provincial elections in Iraq because the Sadrists will take over.

You act as if the US installs temporary dictators within democratic frameworks in order to get good deals.

Sometimes it does. The track record on this kind of thing is kind of spotty. To use a historical example - the US was involved in getting rid of Diem, but it didn't necessarily make things better. As often, the US simply finds that the dictators who take over can be easier to deal with. Most dictatorships tend to be indigenous.

Well, where's the good deal?

Permanent bases, regional domination, a friendly pro-american regime and sweetheart deals for American oil companies. The problem is that none of these things (apart from permanent bases) have materialized because of administration incompetence.

We always knew it would be, and we did it anyway.

Actually, no. The belief was that the invasion and occupation would be very cheap and it would pay for itself because there was so much oil. Several Administration officials are on record talking like that.

Because it was the right thing to do.

Actually, no. The stated reason for the war was because Iraq was alleged to possess weapons of mass destruction that posed a clear and imminent threat to the United States. Period. Making Iraq into a Democracy was not then in the cards, and did not appear as a stated reason for the war until years later.

No deal? We eat this cost?? Ok, and you say it was about good business. If that is remotely true, I want some oil soon and I don't care if it means schools in Iraq do not get built.

Schools in Iraq are not being built. Let's do the numbers: The total long term cost of the occupation is 3 trillion so far. The immediate, up front, out of pocket cost is over half a trillion, or 500 billion give or take. The actual reconstruction needs of Iraq came to about 50 or 60 billion. The actual monies committed to reconstruction by the United States amounted to about 30 billion. The actual monies spent on reconstruction came to about 15 to 20 billion. Most of that money was spent on American companies undertaking projects in Iraq, so most of that money went back to America. From what we can tell, the reconstruction... what actually got done... was done badly.

As for the oil... well, we're still working on that. Stay tuned.

 

[Den Valdron]

I think he was just mad because I shot down his theory in the other terrorism thread, using the Red Brigades and Baader-Meinhoff as examples. He referred to them - and the IRA - as "insignificant." He even implied that they didn't exist. Then you had to go and use them yourself! Why I say, you truly are a devil, Mr Valdron.

EDIT: Or seeing his next post, maybe he just doesn't like anyone refusing to tow the American line?

A devil? Well, I suppose if I must, then I am.

Reading ecofarm's latest post, I really don't think he's got much to say on the topic. I don't think I'll waste much more time.

 

[Den Valdron]

double post, sorry

 

[Sharwood]

A devil? Well, I suppose if I must, then I am.

Reading ecofarm's latest post, I really don't think he's got much to say on the topic. I don't think I'll waste much more time.

You have to be careful with Ecofarm, because he has a devastating flanking attack manoeuvre; the editted post! Notice he changed his post to imply I said the Michigan Militia was a bigger threat than Bin Laden? Tried it on me in the last thread too. I have to say, that's the first time I've seen such a pathetic tactic used to discredit someone. My advice would be to do what I did in the other thread, and simply stop replying to him. The only reason I'm even acknowledging him at all in this one is because I saw him using the same tactics on someone else with an intelligent argument.

 

[Den Valdron]

Interesting. I've seen other people employing a similarly dishonest tactic. It makes an honest discussion impossible.

 

[Ecofarm]

As for the oil... well, we're still working on that. Stay tuned.

Iraq has been over 80 (90?)% pre-invasion production for years.

 

[Sharwood]

Interesting. I've seen other people employing a similarly dishonest tactic. It makes an honest discussion impossible.

I've seen Swedishguy change his signature to remove a link to a Holocaust denial webpage after I pointed it out on a thread he started in the History Forum, which dealt with Russian deaths during the war. However, this editting thing is something I have never witnessed before.

Not only is it dirty and underhanded, it's also ineffective. People see that his post has been editted, and that mine was posted before his edit. Therefore, if I haven't responded to the last few paragraphs, it stands to reason that that's because they simply weren't there. Any fool can see that. Except apparently this guy.

 

[Den Valdron]

Iraq has been over 80 (90?)% pre-invasion production for years.

Then you have your oil, the great robbery is proceeding, what are you complaining about?

 

[Den Valdron]

I've seen Swedishguy change his signature to remove a link to a Holocaust denial webpage after I pointed it out on a thread he started in the History Forum, which dealt with Russian deaths during the war. However, this editting thing is something I have never witnessed before.

Not only is it dirty and underhanded, it's also ineffective. People see that his post has been editted, and that mine was posted before his edit. Therefore, if I haven't responded to the last few paragraphs, it stands to reason that that's because they simply weren't there. Any fool can see that. Except apparently this guy.

I think I've got that beat. There was someone on the abortion thread that edited a quote from me in order to attack. I'd said something along the lines that women were caught in a trap of 'biology and laws.' They dropped out the 'and laws' part and went to town.

I pointed out that this was not proper behaviour, they then flatly denied editing my quote. And proceeded to do it again.

They then posted a completely fabricated quote from me, in order to attack it.

When I pointed that out, they dismissed it as a misprint and edited it out.

Utterly trollish behaviour, and so dishonest I was tempted to recommend that they seek psychiatric help. Bizaare. There simply wasn't any capacity to have a discussion with someone like that.

In any event, its worthwhile to discuss how Bin Laden sees the world because that lets us have some insight into what he does and how he does it. In the long run, let's hope it helps us kill him.

 

[Bill3000]

You should just report it.

 

[Sharwood]

Okay, you win Den. That is bizarre. Although I have probably seen things as weird or weirder on other boards.

Bill, I did report Ecofarm, but that was for his flaming, before the mighty flanking manouevre known as editting was used against me. May have to do it again.

 

[Bill3000]

Okay, you win Den. That is bizarre. Although I have probably seen things as weird or weirder on other boards.

Bill, I did report Ecofarm, but that was for his flaming, before the mighty flanking manouevre known as editting was used against me. May have to do it again.

Did he misrepresent your posts, or edit his own? The former's considered trolling.

 

[Sharwood]

Did he misrepresent your posts, or edit his own? The former's considered trolling.

He editted his own. But he did it in such a way to make it seem as if I was going on about stuff he hadn't said, or that I was selectively choosing what to discuss.