"Al Qaeda" does not exist

"Bradburn Fentress" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > DAS: Oh no? The UK government passed a law which, thankfully, is now
> > being challenged in the courts, severely curtails the rights of
> > individuals and which allowed the government to detain people on merest
> > suspicion.
>
> You misunderstand the purpose of my reply. It had nothing whatsoever to do
> with laws passed or infringement of personal rights. If you read it again,
> in
> the context of your original statement I think you'll understand better.
>
> > DAS: Western governments (maybe not all) are creating a bogeyman like
> > they did in the fifities.
>
> As I said somewhere else in my earlier reply, Bush was, and remains, way
> ahead of most European governments, and now I see some citizens, in
> recognizing the reality of the radical Islamic threat. Is it overstated?
My
> first reaction is "yes", though in a general sense I don't precisely know
> how one explains the reality to those is denial. People the world over
have
> a tendency to forget crises in a matter of months. But what we have found
> with Islamic fundamentalists, is that they have a longer gestation period
> between desire and action. Hence I do think some governments keep the
> experience alive in ways that could be called alarmist.
>

Keep alive in ways that could be called alarmist?

You just said that there is a gestation period between desire and action
that is very long, if this is true (and I have no reason to think it is not
true) then keeping the experience alive isn't alarmist, its realistic so
that we do not spend the next decade learning the same lessons over and over
again.

Having brought that up, we do post the Daily Alert Level (this seems to
cater to an alarmist mentality) on the bottom of the TV screen 24/7/365, and
if it never changes, what's the point? And when it does change, all we see
is the new information on the TV screen, we don't know what to do or where
to do it. Having a threat level of Red in Atlanta is not very useful
information to people in Seattle. And the threat level anywhere is of no
interest in Corn Cobb Hole, Nebraska. (Please tell me there is noplace
called Corn Cobb Hole, either in Nebraska or anywhere else.) My point is,
the threat level is something the police or other first responders might
need to know every day, but the average Joe on the street simply doesn't
care, and the further one gets from Urban America, they care even less. To
keep drumming this status into us every day is an alarmist tactic that
probably does not serve any particular purpose.





> > There is no need for a climate of fear.
>
> I can't speak for the rest of the world, but few here live in a climate of
> fear, and if you think that is what the US is about, then you are quite a
> bit off track. I would be the first to admit the US, as Hunter Thompson
put
> it, has a "dark, venal and undeniably violent" side to our individual and
> national personality. We seldom react to pressure or attack with fear.
> People here aren't afraid, instead they are angry...ready...good to go. It
> is this reaction our government plays to, not one of fear. If you don't
> understand that about us, then you really have a long way to go before
> thinking you have any perspective on the US people at all.
>
> If fear were the over-riding emotion in this country, then Bush could
never
> have been re-elected, nor would he have had a good portion a our
population
> to support his attack in Iraq. He got what he wanted because he, unlike
you,
> understands what drives Americans in times of death and destruction.
>
> It is the difference between not wanting to die....and....wanting to live.
>
> > Of course, it suits other regimes (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the lot) to
> > join in. These terrorists are being given tremendous publicity and a
> > status they don't have; that's what I mean by golden opportunity.
>
> But you are wrong. They indeed, in the eyes of those who really matter,
have
> earned their moments of glory. They have played to the right sentiments
and
> have created their own acclaim. There isn't much the Western world has
done
> that accentuates this to any great degree.
>
> > There was no such thing as a far-reaching organization (your comments
> > about an 'alliance of ideas' not withstanding) Al Qaeda until Donald
> > Rumsfeld, Tony Blair et al kept going on about it.
>
> I guess we will see. I have not drawn complete conclusion on this point,
> and frankly I don't know how you can. My suspicion is that the
organization,
> though limited in that sense by what it means to the Western man, does
exist
> and does work, but that it is neither as complicated as they suggest nor
as
> simple as you do. When I consider that much of the Middle East was tribal
> and that much of the national borders that exist was established by
Western
> countries, it isn't difficult for me to see that Arab and Muslim alliances
> will not be defined by our standards nor will they be active in ways we
> might call organized. Though they may very well remain organized alliances
> in tribal religious terms.
>
> > DAS: The American forces found nothing, upon which the British army was
> > sent in who, in their snootiness thought they could do better. I saw
the
> > interview with a senior British officer who admitted that nothing was
> > found. Not a shred of evidence for any conspiracy of any sort. No
> > evidence for any HQ of any organization.
>
> My nephew was deployed with the 3rd ACR out of Fort Carson, returned and
is
> being deployed again, end of this month. Units of the 3rd were in Tora
Bora
> and they found tons of munitions, tons of documents, evidence of a
> systematic defense, as well as organizational residence. I'm not certain
> what your reference to "conspiracy" means, but it is without doubt the
caves
> were used much as typical buildings are used, to houses supplies, manpower
> and leadership.
>
> Now, was it some type of "headquarters"...nah, I don't think so. They were
> in runaway mode so I doubt the caves were much more than the place to
store
> men and weapons which would be hardest for opposing forces to find and
> investigate
>
> I will take the word of the soldiers who were there long before I'd
believe
> anything you, Rummy or Blair ever had to say on this subject. I don't know
> how much better info I could get than to speak with the men who were
there.
> Not men whose comments are shaped, muted and indeed censored, so as to
> produce the desired effect. I generally have little belief in anything any
> news agency publishes or distributes for our eyes and ears. Televised
> interviews are almost always awash in the designs of the organization
> broadcasting them. Simple editing almost makes this inevitable.
>

I agree with your sentiment, but when the news says X, and your nephew comes
home and also says X, then don't you think it is probably safe that the
media is telling the truth? If it was just the media, then I would share the
skeptacism, but there are ample people to come forward every day and tell
you X. You validate X by getting it from several different directions.






> >>> In my opinion it would, in any case, have taken years of construction
to
> >>> build such a thing, with great effort, since it was in the middle of
> >>> nowhere. Use of explosives would probably have been detected.
> >>> Otherwise,
> >>> digging by hand would have taken even longer and perhaps large groups
of
> >>> people and that would have been detected also.
> >>
> >> Many of the caves are natural. Not unlike lava tubes found in Hawaii
and
> >> Galapagos.
> >>
> > DAS: The existence of a series of networked caves is of no consequence.
>
> Yes, it is of extreme consequence when your claim that it would have taken
> years to build is rendered moot by their prior existence. Having spoken
with
> soldiers who were there it is clear to me the caves exist, they are
> networked and they were used by remants of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda
in
> Afghanistan. At the bottom line, that is about all the US government ever
> said about the caves. Nothing I have seen or heard indicates they thought
it
> was some type of headquarters.
>

Yes, caves as a place to hide and caves as an organizational headquarters
are different things. All I have heard about the caves was that they were
good places to hide. Yes, some munitions were found, and perhaps some
records and files, but it has been my understanding that this stuff was just
being stored in the cave in hopes the Americans would not find it.

Early on in Afghanistan, I saw a report on how the caves _could_ be used for
headquarters, but the diesel generators that would need to be placed at the
openings would give them away in all cases. The ariflow inside the caves is
generally poor so the generators would need to remain outside, and the
trails that would necessarily lead to the entrance of a well used cave would
end the deception that it was just another empty cave.




> > DAS: Whilst appeasement of Hitler was a major error on the part of the
> > British government (no dispute about that anywhere, especially with
20:20
> > hindsight) I should like to know in what respect "non-provocation"
played
> > a role in the start of WW I.
>
> If you subscribe to the superficial view that Ferdinand's assassination
> prompted WW1 (and that is evident by your reply) I don't think there is
much
> use in discussing this particular point with you.
>
>
>

"Erich" > wrote in message
...
> > In my opinion it would, in any case, have taken years of construction to
> > build such a thing, with great effort, since it was in the middle of
> > nowhere. Use of explosives would probably have been detected.
Otherwise,
> > digging by hand would have taken even longer and perhaps large groups of
> > people and that would have been detected also.
>
> Have you seen that hilarious clip of Rumsfeld on "Meet The Press" where
he,
> with the help of illustrations that seemed to be the blueprints for
> something out of a Bond movie, described these underground caves,
fortresses
> even, with offices, bedrooms, hydro-electro power, air ventilation
systems,
> entrances large enough to drive in trucks and tanks, etc, etc. It was just
> nuts.
>
>

Relatively easy to do if keeping them secret was not an objective.

We have our entire missile defense infrastructure housed underground, what
makes you think that only Americans know how to dig a tunnel complex? It is
absurd to suggest that hiding stuff in tunnels and caves is nuts.

> Relatively easy to do if keeping them secret was not an objective.
>
> We have our entire missile defense infrastructure housed underground, what
> makes you think that only Americans know how to dig a tunnel complex? It
is
> absurd to suggest that hiding stuff in tunnels and caves is nuts.

If you had seen the clip and the illustrations of these supposed underground
fortresses, you would know how absurd it was.

"Erich" > wrote in message
...
> > Relatively easy to do if keeping them secret was not an objective.
> >
> > We have our entire missile defense infrastructure housed underground,
what
> > makes you think that only Americans know how to dig a tunnel complex? It
> is
> > absurd to suggest that hiding stuff in tunnels and caves is nuts.
>
> If you had seen the clip and the illustrations of these supposed
underground
> fortresses, you would know how absurd it was.
>
>

I think I did see them. I saw something about the caves when we first went
into Afghanistan. I think the discussion was theoretical though, not an
acutal description of what they thought they would find. What they thought
they might find.

Theoretically there is no reason to think that somebody might dig out the
inside of a mountain. We did, and there are certainly other examples of
where others have done it.

"Greg Murphy" > wrote in message
...
> You are probably correct. The US government controls the media, which
means
> it control the mindless population of the USA. Meaning, you can create
> anything you want to justify anything you want to do. Look at who is in
> power. George Bush, clearly the most ignorant, uneducated, red neck ever
to
> wonder into power. This guy was elected by a somewhat dumber population.
> Now, given the control of media by the Government, these lemmings can be
fed
> anything. And apparently they have been, now look at the mess they are
in.
> The country is bankrupt, the government is corrupt, and the illegal
invasion
> is still going on.
>
> Just thank God you weren't born american.
>

Government control of the media. Let's explore that for a moment.

ABC. CBS. NBC. CNN. MSNBC. FOX

At least one of these dances to a different drummer, and therefore is not
controlled by the government. Pick one.

That's hilarious.

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:44:46 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> wrote:


>Very insightful and to the point. Good job. You even managed to bash Bush
>and look smart while doing it ;-)
>
>I agree with you almost entirely. It isn't about Bush, its about the rest of
>the world understanding that the USA is tops on the hit list, and everybody
>else is next. I guess our only disagreement is that I agree with Bush's
>actions because I get that everybody else is next if Bush doesn't do
>something. Perhaps the specific action can be called into question, that's
>certainly fair. But the idea of sitting on ones hands is simply untenable.

I don't support the lies used to start this war nor do I approve of
the total lack of planning. In the end, once our forces have been
removed from Iraq, I believe Iraq will return to chaos. Bush can not
create peace and democracy where it is not welcomed and the countries
around Iraq do not welcome the US interference.

"Erich" > wrote in message
...

> If you had seen the clip and the illustrations of these supposed
> underground
> fortresses, you would know how absurd it was.

The idea that caves and tunnels were **not** used for protection and storage
is what is absurd. You think these people stayed outside in the elements,
exposed to air strikes, when there were caves and tunnels right next to them
that would provide shelter, munitions storage, and leadership protection?

I have spoken to soldiers that were there (have you?) and they said there
was ample evidence the caves and tunnels were used precisely as suggested by
the American military.

Ya know, it doesn't have to have the spit and polish of the Starship
Enterprise to reach the level of usefulness suggested. Frankly, only an
idiot would have listened to the descriptions of these caves and walked away
thinking they were built with the precision of NORAD.

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...

> Very insightful and to the point. Good job. You even managed to bash Bush
> and look smart while doing it ;-)

I wasn't trying to bash Bush. I didn't vote for him and I think he is
tactically efficient while also being strategically inane, but I wasn't
trying to minimize him.

> I agree with you almost entirely. It isn't about Bush, its about the rest
> of
> the world understanding that the USA is tops on the hit list, and
> everybody
> else is next. I guess our only disagreement is that I agree with Bush's
> actions because I get that everybody else is next if Bush doesn't do
> something. Perhaps the specific action can be called into question, that's
> certainly fair. But the idea of sitting on ones hands is simply untenable.

I didn't say he shouldn't have done anything, I said I disagree with his
actions. He had it right the first time, but then insisted on attacking
Iraq. You see, tactically efficient, but strategically stupid. Iraq will not
ever be Democratic. The power Islam guarantees that.

I think that unless we stay there forever, civil war is inevitable. Think of
all the places we have engaged in country building, at least those that have
been successful, and then consider if our military presence has ever left
those countries. I mean go back as far as you want, and the standard will
not change.

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...

>> a tendency to forget crises in a matter of months. But what we have found
>> with Islamic fundamentalists, is that they have a longer gestation period
>> between desire and action. Hence I do think some governments keep the
>> experience alive in ways that could be called alarmist.
>>
>
> Keep alive in ways that could be called alarmist?
>
> You just said that there is a gestation period between desire and action
> that is very long, if this is true (and I have no reason to think it is
> not
> true) then keeping the experience alive isn't alarmist, its realistic

I didn't say keeping the experience alive was alarmist, I said some
governments keep it alive in ways that could be called alarmist.

>> I will take the word of the soldiers who were there long before I'd
> believe
>> anything you, Rummy or Blair ever had to say on this subject. I don't
>> know
>> how much better info I could get than to speak with the men who were
> there.
>> Not men whose comments are shaped, muted and indeed censored, so as to
>> produce the desired effect. I generally have little belief in anything
>> any
>> news agency publishes or distributes for our eyes and ears. Televised
>> interviews are almost always awash in the designs of the organization
>> broadcasting them. Simple editing almost makes this inevitable.
>>
>
> I agree with your sentiment, but when the news says X, and your nephew
> comes
> home and also says X, then don't you think it is probably safe that the
> media is telling the truth? If it was just the media, then I would share
> the
> skeptacism, but there are ample people to come forward every day and tell
> you X. You validate X by getting it from several different directions.


Which is the point. Just because the media, and I mean any media, here,
Europe, Middle East, wherever gets it right one or two times, that doesn't
minimize my healthy suspicions. Look earlier in this thread were some of
these guys saw a "clip"....and think they now have all the answers they need
in order to proclaim US descriptions of the cave as "absurd". What kind if
knucklehead doesn't recognize that media, has become entertainment, and
entertainment must connect with the audience. Is it any wonder Le Monde, Al
Jazzerra, and the Fox can all do a story on the same incident, yet come out
with completely different stories? No, of course not, they all play to
different audiences....hence the need for different slants to almost any
story.

"Bradburn Fentress" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> a tendency to forget crises in a matter of months. But what we have
found
> >> with Islamic fundamentalists, is that they have a longer gestation
period
> >> between desire and action. Hence I do think some governments keep the
> >> experience alive in ways that could be called alarmist.
> >>
> >
> > Keep alive in ways that could be called alarmist?
> >
> > You just said that there is a gestation period between desire and action
> > that is very long, if this is true (and I have no reason to think it is
> > not
> > true) then keeping the experience alive isn't alarmist, its realistic
>
> I didn't say keeping the experience alive was alarmist, I said some
> governments keep it alive in ways that could be called alarmist.
>

I didn't mean that you said it was alarmist. I understood that some
governments are keeping it alive in a manner that one could think of as an
alarmist tactic.

What I was questioning is the perceived conflict of the long gestation
period and the alarmist tactics. If there is indeed a long gestation period,
then keeping the issue alive is very important, even if the method might
appear to be alarmist.

I am actually agreeing with you in concept, but exploring the topic to the
next deeper layer.



> >> I will take the word of the soldiers who were there long before I'd
> > believe
> >> anything you, Rummy or Blair ever had to say on this subject. I don't
> >> know
> >> how much better info I could get than to speak with the men who were
> > there.
> >> Not men whose comments are shaped, muted and indeed censored, so as to
> >> produce the desired effect. I generally have little belief in anything
> >> any
> >> news agency publishes or distributes for our eyes and ears. Televised
> >> interviews are almost always awash in the designs of the organization
> >> broadcasting them. Simple editing almost makes this inevitable.
> >>
> >
> > I agree with your sentiment, but when the news says X, and your nephew
> > comes
> > home and also says X, then don't you think it is probably safe that the
> > media is telling the truth? If it was just the media, then I would share
> > the
> > skeptacism, but there are ample people to come forward every day and
tell
> > you X. You validate X by getting it from several different directions.
>
>
> Which is the point. Just because the media, and I mean any media, here,
> Europe, Middle East, wherever gets it right one or two times, that doesn't
> minimize my healthy suspicions. Look earlier in this thread were some of
> these guys saw a "clip"....and think they now have all the answers they
need
> in order to proclaim US descriptions of the cave as "absurd". What kind if
> knucklehead doesn't recognize that media, has become entertainment, and
> entertainment must connect with the audience. Is it any wonder Le Monde,
Al
> Jazzerra, and the Fox can all do a story on the same incident, yet come
out
> with completely different stories? No, of course not, they all play to
> different audiences....hence the need for different slants to almost any
> story.


Well said.