Bush and Co. Walking Into bin Laden's Trap - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-16-2003, 03:13 AM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 10:45 AM
Bush and Co. Walking Into bin Laden's Trap

Okay, this is for all of you who are asking for a good reason for the US not to attack. Here's one VERY GOOD reason not to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq...


Bush and Co. Walking Into bin Laden’s Trap


“Can senior White
House officials really
be so ill-informed
about bin Laden’s
goals and strategy, or
do they just assume
that the U.S. public
hasn’t got a clue? And
if they do understand
what bin Laden is up
to, why are they
planning to do what
he wants anyway?”


By Gwynne Dyer
for (impressive) bio see: http://142.27.12.158/~events/dyer_cv.html


“If Hitler invaded Hell, I should make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons,” said Winston Churchill in July, 1941, explaining why he was willing to make an alliance with Stalin now that Hitler had invaded the Soviet Union.

“The interests of Muslims and socialists converge in the fight against the Crusaders,” said Osama bin Laden in a taped speech broadcast on al-Jazeera on Tuesday, urging good Muslims to fight the American invaders of Iraq despite the “ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq.”

And why shouldn’t the al-Qaida leader try on Churchill’s mantle? Everybody else is doing it, from British Prime Minister Tony Blair (who regularly quotes Churchill on ‘appeasement’) to President George W. Bush (who has Churchill’s picture on the wall in the Oval Office) to U.S. Defence Secretary Don Rumsfeld (who seems to think he is the reincarnation of the Great Man).

True, comparing Osama bin Laden to Winston Churchill is not an everyday activity, but in this case the analogy is exact.

Osama bin Laden despises the socialist dictator Saddam Hussein, but wants to see American troops mired in Iraq, just as Churchill loathed the Communist dictator Joseph Stalin but longed to see German troops bogged down in the Soviet Union.

The objective is to win the wider war, and if your enemy can be diverted into doing something stupid like invading Iraq (or the Soviet Union, in Churchill’s case), that is all to the good.

Bin Laden has been condemning Saddam Hussein’s godless socialist regime for years, calling Saddam an ‘infidel’ and advocating his over-throw, but if the United States wants to wade into Iraq and kill lost of Muslims, by all means let it do so. That would kill two birds with a single stone.

Saddam Hussein and his sons will be killed and the secular Baathist regime in Iraq destroyed, which certainly serves al-Qaida’s long-term goal of establishing Islamist government similar to that of the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan in every Arab state.

The Baathis regimes of Syria and Iraq are the Islamists’ most serious opposition in the Arab world, as they still retain some remnant of their original socialist and Arab nationalist credentials. And meanwhile the Unites States will be killing lots of innocent Arab Muslims in Iraq – the more the better, from bin Laden’s point of view, since every Arab victory should bring in dozens of new recruits for al-Qaida and its fellow Islamist movements in the Arab countries.

That has been bin Laden’s strategy from the start. The Islamist movements have been unable to persuade enough Arabs to join them in overthrowing the existing secular Arab governments – the ‘ignorant governments’, as he calls them – despite 20 years of terrorism in the Arab countries, so al Qaida was created to enlist the unwitting support of the ‘far enemy’ (the West) in the struggle.

If the United States could be tricked into committing mayhem in the Arab world, that might finally drive enough Arabs into the Islamist camp to get their long-stalled revolutions off the ground.

That was what the attacks on the United States on Sept 11, 2001 were intended to produce: an indiscriminate, massive American retaliation against targets linked with the Islamists throughout the Arab world that would create huge ‘collateral damage’ in the form of innocent Arab deaths.

Bin Laden had reason to hope for such a response because that was what former U.S. president Bill Clinton had done, although on a much smaller scale, after al-Qaida killed 24 Americans in the attacks on U.S. embassies in East Africa in September 1998.

Surely killing many thousands of Americans on home ground would make the U.S. government go berserk and do the same thing again, but on a far greater scale.

The Bush administration did not walk into that trap, and instead focused its attention quite sensibly, on dismantling al-Qaida’s bases in Afghanistan. It was 19 Arabs who hijacked those four airliners on Sept. 11, but no Arab country has been attacked by the United States from that day to this.

Now, however, President Bush has created a similar trap for himself by targeting Iraq, and is about to walk into it. Bin Laden is delighted, and is naturally urging all Muslims to resist: the more Arab casualties, the better, from his point of view.

What is stunning is the smug ignorance of the ‘senior White House official’ who told CNN that the tape shows “a terrorist making common cause with a brutal dictator…it demonstrates a burgeoning alliance of terror. This confirms that bad guys swim with the other bad guys. They live in the same pool.”

Can senior White House officials really be so ill-informed about bin Laden’s goals and strategy, or do they just assume that the U.S. public hasn’t got a clue? And if they do understand what bin Laden is up to, why are they planning to do what he wants anyway?

We are way past sensible argument here, so perhaps we should just end with the latest joke making the rounds.

Q: Mr. President, why are you so certain that Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons?
A: We kept the receipts.
__________________

__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 04:26 AM   #2
Acrobat
 
PopTart, Pamela's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Blue Mountains, west of Sydney, Australia
Posts: 356
Local Time: 08:45 PM
can you believe it !!?
beyond ny understanding.

Pamela
__________________

__________________
PopTart, Pamela is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 04:45 AM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:45 AM
Well, it was also Bin Ladin's plan that the USA would invade Afghanistan and he could drag the USA into a long war in which thousands of US soldiers would die in Afghanistan. He was sadly mistaken and he and his Al Quada and Taliban buddies got their socks kicked in. Of course there were many through out the world who believed that Bin Ladin would achieve his goal if the USA, invaded Aghanistan. They were wrong as well. 12 years ago, every Arab government was supposed to have been overthrown by popular revolt because of the US invasion of Kuwait and Iraq to push the Iraqi military out of Kuwait. It didn't happen. Not even a single act of violence to overthrow any government. Arab people are not sucide robots waiting to die for Bin Ladin or Saddam. They are much smarter than that. The number of Arabs that buy Coke will continue to vastly outnumber the number of Arabs who actively participate in Terrorism even after and invasion of Iraq.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 04:52 AM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 10:45 AM
Read the other article I posted ("When and How This War Is Going To Be Played Out") to see the major difference between this war and the one in the early 90s. Two very different animals. Also, the US invasion of Afghanistan was a sensible one, and a far different type of invasion (it targeted a specific terrorist group) than Iraq will be (tens of thousands of civilians will die). No, this one will have political ramifications that really ought to be avoided.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 05:22 AM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:45 AM
A US invasion of Iraq would NOT target civilians and would only target Iraqi military forces that decided to resist, just like the invasion of Afghanistan that only targeted the nationwide Taliban forces that resisted in addition to Al Quada. I did read the "When and How This War Is Going To Be Played Out" and disagreed with the conclusions.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 07:09 AM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 12:45 PM
Targeting and killing is not the same. The U.S. forces and every others countries forces miss their targets often enough, which leads to unnecessary bloodbaths of civilians.

Apart from that, every soldier is a civilian too, probably not by the definition of the U.S. army, but by the definition of his mother.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 02:40 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 10:45 AM
whenhipdrovethebigcars: very well said

STING2: we disagree then. Will the U.S. intentionally target civilians? No. Will they kill many, many civilians? Yes.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 03:05 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 11:45 AM
I fear of the increasing radical Muslims' hate of the West as well, especially if Israel should retaliate towards Iraq.

*edit* Or if this whole thing should not end with Saddam and other countries will follow.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 03:14 PM   #9
Bordering Purgatory
 
Flag Pole Pear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 794
Local Time: 04:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
A US invasion of Iraq would NOT target civilians and would only target Iraqi military forces that decided to resist, just like the invasion of Afghanistan that only targeted the nationwide Taliban forces that resisted in addition to Al Quada. I did read the "When and How This War Is Going To Be Played Out" and disagreed with the conclusions.
no war has ever worked like that, and no war ever will turn like that.

i guess bombing a wedding in afganistan doesnt really matter. that doesnt count, it was a mistake. all the other civilian casualities - theyre honest mistakes so it doesnt count.

killing is fine as long as its by mistake.

remember that blitzkrieg you guys were talking about? thousands of missiles launched in the capitol on the day of the attack? without notice or warning? that MIGHT kill a few INNOCENT people, dont you think?

-america the beautiful
__________________
you could have it all
my empire of dirt
i will let you down
i will make you hurt
Flag Pole Pear is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 03:40 PM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Flag Pole Pear


no war has ever worked like that, and no war ever will turn like that.

i guess bombing a wedding in afganistan doesnt really matter. that doesnt count, it was a mistake. all the other civilian casualities - theyre honest mistakes so it doesnt count.

killing is fine as long as its by mistake.

remember that blitzkrieg you guys were talking about? thousands of missiles launched in the capitol on the day of the attack? without notice or warning? that MIGHT kill a few INNOCENT people, dont you think?

-america the beautiful
Yes, I have always wondered what the exact difference between unintentional killing of civilians and killing by default is. STING2 - I change my mind: the US, given the right circumstances will, by default, intentionally kill civilians, and have done so in the past (thus it is emperically verified).

By the way STING2, if you haven't already, I'd check out this writer's bio. I don't think I'm making too much of an assumption that he's done a hell of a lot more research and has worked in the field (military and otherwise) much more extensively - and even personally knows many of the world players involved - much more so than even you have and do.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 03:43 PM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths
the US, given the right circumstances will, by default, intentionally kill civilians, and have done so in the past
*thinks back to Korea and Laos...

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 03:45 PM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 11:45 AM
How 'bout Vietnam for intentionally killing civilians?
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 05:15 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:45 AM
My father fought in the Vietnam War, and US bombing saved the lives of many South Vietnamese civilians and US soldiers.

Michael Griffiths,

Hey, I did not say anything to discredit the writer of the article personally. You don't know me, so please don't make unbased judgements about what I or anyone else here knows or has experienced.

I don't disagree with the writer because of his Bio, but because of his conclusions. There are many other people that also disagree with the writer as well.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 05:24 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:45 AM
Michael,

"Yes, I have always wondered what the exact difference between unintentional killing of civilians and killing by default is. STING2 - I change my mind: the US, given the right circumstances will, by default, intentionally kill civilians, and have done so in the past (thus it is emperically verified)."

Were also killing civilians if we fail to disarm Saddam now and let him get WMD that will be used to kill millions of innocent civilians. Saddam has already killed 1.7 million people, how many more people are you willing to let Saddam kill?

Whenever the Police use force in your local community to stop crime, there is always the risk that someone will be killed or injured accidently. 150 Police officers were killed in the line of duty last year in the USA. Many people who were innocent civilians are killed every year when Police use force to catch criminals. Would you suggest that the Police are intentially murdering innocent civilians?

Sorry, I disagree. The USA does not target civilians and goes to great lengths to avoid civilian loss of life. The USA is acting in Iraq to prevent the mass loss of life that will result of Saddam decides to use nuclear weapons that he will eventually get if something is not done. If you want to equate what the USA does with what Bin Ladin did on 9/11, fine, but me and millions of other people strongly disagree and see the huge difference.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-16-2003, 05:36 PM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Michael,

"Yes, I have always wondered what the exact difference between unintentional killing of civilians and killing by default is. STING2 - I change my mind: the US, given the right circumstances will, by default, intentionally kill civilians, and have done so in the past (thus it is emperically verified)."

Were also killing civilians if we fail to disarm Saddam now and let him get WMD that will be used to kill millions of innocent civilians. Saddam has already killed 1.7 million people, how many more people are you willing to let Saddam kill?

Whenever the Police use force in your local community to stop crime, there is always the risk that someone will be killed or injured accidently. 150 Police officers were killed in the line of duty last year in the USA. Many people who were innocent civilians are killed every year when Police use force to catch criminals. Would you suggest that the Police are intentially murdering innocent civilians?

Sorry, I disagree. The USA does not target civilians and goes to great lengths to avoid civilian loss of life. The USA is acting in Iraq to prevent the mass loss of life that will result of Saddam decides to use nuclear weapons that he will eventually get if something is not done. If you want to equate what the USA does with what Bin Ladin did on 9/11, fine, but me and millions of other people strongly disagree and see the huge difference.
STING2: 1st, I apologize of making assumptions about your military experience and your knowledge of political science and foreign affairs. Secondly, I didn't ever "equate" what bin Laden did on 911 with what the "USA does". Thirdly, no country in this world should attack another country unilaterally, based on suspicion alone. I find it very strange that this "evidence" has come into being only now, when the US have been planning this war for at least a year (that we know about). This war was sought out - for whatever the reasons - plain and simple.
__________________

__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com