• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Terrorist Strategy 101


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 11 November 2004 - 04:07 PM


I dedicate this one to the neo-cons out there, myself having at one time subscribed to the philosophy.
URL: http://dailykos.com/...11/10/01247/557

Terrorist Strategy 101: a quiz
by Pericles
Tue Nov 9th, 2004 at 22:57:00 PST

(From the diaries -- kos)

Instructions. For Questions 1 and 2, assume you are a violent extremist. In other words, there is some issue (it doesn't really matter what) for which you are willing to take up arms and kill people, even innocent people.

Question 1: What is the first and biggest obstacle between you and victory?

If you answered "People on the other side of my issue," go sit in the corner. That answer is completely wrong. If you assume terrorists think that way, everything they do will seem like total insanity.

The first and biggest obstacle to your victory is that the vast majority of the people who sympathize with your issue are not violent extremists. They may agree with you in principle. They may even sound like violent extremists late at night over their beverage of choice. But when the hammer comes down, they won't be there. There are weeds in the garden and final exams coming up and deadlines at the office. Good luck with that car bombing. Call me next time, maybe things will have settled down by then.

Most people, most of the time, just want to get along. They'll accept a little inconvenience, ignore a few insults, and smile at people they hate if it allows them to get on with their lives. Most people on both sides of your issue just wish the issue would go away. If you're not careful, those apathetic majorities will get together and craft a compromise. And where's your revolution then?

So your first goal as a violent extremist is not to kill your enemies, but to radicalize the apathetic majority on your side of the issue. If everyone becomes a violent extremist, then you (as one of the early violent extremists) are a leader of consequence. Conversely, if a reasonable compromise is worked out, you are a nuisance.

Question 2: In radicalizing your sympathizers, who is your best ally?

No points awarded for "the media" or "sympathetic foreign governments". In radicalizing your apathetic sympathizers, you have no better ally than the violent extremists on the other side. Only they can convince your people that compromise is impossible. Only they can raise your countrymen's level of fear and despair to the point that large numbers are willing to take up arms and follow your lead. A few blown up apartment buildings and dead schoolchildren will get you more recruits than the best revolutionary tracts ever written.

Perversely, this means that you are the best ally of the extremists on the other side. That doesn't mean you love or even talk to each other -- they are, after all, vile and despicable demons. But at this stage in the process your interests align. Both of you want to invert the bell curve, to flatten out that big hump in the middle and drive people to the edges. That's why extremists come in pairs: Caesar and Pompey, the Nazis and the Communists, Sharon and Arafat, Bush and Bin Laden. Each side needs a demonic opposite in order to galvanize its supporters.

Naive observers frequently decry the apparent counter-productivity of extremist attacks. Don't the leaders of Hamas understand that every suicide bombing makes the Israelis that much more determined not to give the Palestinians a state? Don't they realize that the Israeli government will strike back even harder, and inflict even more suffering on the Palestinian people? Of course they do; they're not idiots. The Israeli response is exactly what they're counting on. More airstrikes, more repression, more poverty -- fewer opportunities for normal life to get in the way of the Great Struggle.

The cycle of violence may be vicious, but it is not pointless. Each round of strike-and-counterstrike makes the political center less tenable. The surviving radical leaders on each side energize their respective bases and cement their respective holds on power. The first round of the playoffs is always the two extremes against the center. Only after the center is vanquished will you meet your radical counterparts in the championship round.

Question 3: What is Bin Laden's ultimate goal?

This is an easy one. Bin Laden has been very explicit: He wants a return of the Caliphate. In other words, he wants a re-unified Islamic nation stretching from Indonesia to Morocco, governed by leaders faithful to the Koran.

This goal is quite popular in the Islamic world. The Muslim man-in-the-street knows his history: When the Dar al-Islam was unified, it was the most feared empire in the world. Baghdad, the home of the Caliph, was the center of civilization, leading the world in learning and artistry as well as power. (Europe may well have lost its classical heritage if Muslim libraries hadn't preserved Greek manuscripts through the Dark Ages. Just about any English word beginning with al refers to an Islamic invention: algebra, algorithm, alchemy, and even alcohol -- which was an Arabian process for distilling perfumes long before the West started using it to make hard liquor). Who wouldn't want that back?

Well, for starters, the current rulers of the two dozen or so nations of the Dar al-Islam wouldn't want the Caliphate back. They've got a cushy deal and they know it: They run a very profitable gas station for the West. Keep the people in check, keep the price of oil low enough not to wreck the Western economies, don't piss off the United States badly enough to bring the troops in, and they're set.

These leaders are Bin Laden's near enemies. (That list of near enemies included Saddam Hussein when he was in power.) The far enemy is the power that backs them all up: the United States. (You may look askance at the assertion that the US was backing up Saddam's Iraq. But Saddam became our enemy only when he began to unite other nations (i.e., Kuwait) under his rule. In the Reagan years, when Iran was threatening to extend its boundaries at Iraq's expense, Saddam was our friend.)

Question 4: What is Bin Laden's immediate goal?

If you've been paying attention, you should get this one right: His immediate goal is to radicalize the hundreds of millions of Muslims who sympathize with the vision of a restored Caliphate, but have better things to do with their lives than join the jihad. A particular problem for Bin Laden are all the Muslims who think that they can find an acceptable place for themselves in a world order dominated by the United States.

I won't insult your intelligence by asking you who his best allies are in reaching this goal: President Bush, obviously, and all of the neo-conservatives in the Pentagon who push for the most aggressive response to the terrorist threat. Also the Christian leaders like Franklin (son of Billy) Graham, who regularly denounce Islam in terms that look fabulous on Al Qaeda's equivalent of the locker-room bulletin board. John Ashcroft -- and anyone else who mistreats assimilating Arabs and thereby convinces them that they will never really be welcome in America -- is also an ally.

It doesn't matter how much they hate him or denounce his deeds; anyone who radicalizes Muslims is doing Bin Laden's work for him. President Bush may as well have been reading from an Al Qaeda script when he referred to the War on Terror as a "crusade". Muslims know their history and know exactly what a crusade is: Christians invade and steal your land. People who didn't believe this when they heard it from Bin Laden have now heard it from the Crusader-in-Chief.

Question 5: What was the purpose of 9/11?

No points for "To intimidate the United States into retreating from the Middle East." If the US had immediately decided to wash its hands of the Middle East, a variety of secular gangsters like Mubarak and Musharraf and Hussein would have started fighting it out amongst themselves. The odds were small that an Allah-fearing Caliph would arise from such a struggle. Whether the eventual outcome would have been good or bad for the United States is debatable, but it would have been terrible for Bin Laden.

Like all attacks in the bell-curve-inverting stage, the purpose of 9/11 was to provoke a military response. Prior to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, most Muslims had never seen a direct victim of the United States. Many have claimed that the Israelis are really American proxies, and so the Palestinians are victims of America. (Some have gone so far as to claim that the Serbians were American proxies, but that was always far-fetched.) Proxies, however, can never compete with real live American soldiers. And despite the occasional bombing of Lebanon or Syria or even Iraq, it is hard to paint the Israelis as anything more than a regional threat. Pakistanis and Indonesians may sympathize with the Palestinians in a distant sort of way, but they can't raise a credible fear of Jewish tanks rolling down the streets of Islamabad or Jakarta.

Now, thanks to President Bush and the magic of al-Jazeera, every Muslim with working eyesight has seen Muslim women and children killed or horribly disfigured by Americans. And Americans are everywhere; any one of them might be working for the CIA. American troops and ships and aircraft have a global reach. No matter where in the Dar al-Islam you may be, you could be under American attack in a matter of hours. Those screaming people on TV could be you and your family.

Question 6: What was the point of the Madrid bombing?

Trick question. The point of the Madrid bombing was exactly as it appeared: to intimidate the Spanish into taking their troops out of Iraq. And, by extension, to intimidate all the other members of Bush's coalition.

Bin Laden wants to fight Americans, because America scares his sympathizers and energizes his base. But Spaniards and Poles and Salvadorans just confuse the issue. Also, an allied presence
diminishes American expense and American casualties, both of which are key to Bin Laden's strategy.

Question 7: What is Bin Laden's long-term strategy to defeat the United States?

Some people find it hard to believe that Bin Laden can even imagine that he will defeat the United States, much less that he has a plan to do so. But he believes in miracles, and he began his military career by participating in the defeat of the once-mighty Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Bin Laden has been very clear about his strategy, which depends on the same principles that won the Soviet/Afghan War. In his taped message of October, 2004 he said (according to an al-Jazeera translation):

All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.
This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat. All Praise is due to Allah. So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.

In other words, he wants to draw the well paid, lavishly supplied American soldiers into wars on his territory, where he can fight cheaply. The more American troops he can attract, the more expensive the war will be, until even the economy of the United States can no longer support it.

This idea is not new. Abu-Ubayd al-Qurashi wrote in Al-Ansar in December 2002 that Al Qaeda would imitate the Vietnamese strategy of attacking the "center of gravity" of the United States. Then, the center of gravity was American popular opinion, so the real Vietnam War was fought on television. But things have changed:

A conviction has formed among the mujahedin that American public opinion is not the center of gravity in America. ... This time it is clearly apparent that the American economy is the American center of gravity. ... Supporting this penetrating strategic view is that the Disunited States of America are a mixture of nationalities, ethnic groups, and races united only by the "American Dream" or, to put it more correctly, the worship of the dollar, which they openly call "the Almighty Dollar."

Currently, the Iraq and Afghan Wars together are costing the US something like $60-80 billion a year. That's a nasty load and is one reason why our national debt is sky-rocketing, but it is still within the long-term carrying capacity of the American economy. However, this level of effort is not getting the job done in either country. More American troops and American money will ultimately be needed, particularly if Bin Laden can continue to strip away our allies. If he really wants to destroy the American economy, though, Bin Laden must widen the war into additional Middle Eastern countries.

Question 8. Why didn't Al Qaeda attack the United States before the election?

On the evening before the election, I was on a street corner waving a Kerry sign. The next guy over was waving a Bush sign. He put forward the following case: Of course Bin Laden wanted to intimidate us into leaving Iraq, of course he wanted Kerry elected, and of course he would have attacked us prior to the election if he could, but President Bush has so improved our homeland defenses and so wounded al Qaeda that Bin Laden no longer has the ability to launch a major attack inside the United States.

Let's put aside for the moment the thought that Timothy McVeigh was no genius, so you and I could probably launch a major terrorist attack in the US if we were so inclined and sufficiently determined. The sign-waver's logic fails to account for Bin Laden's goals and strategy: While Bin Laden wanted Spain to leave Iraq, he wants us to stay in. He's counting on it. Moreover, President Bush is so hated in the Islamic world that he makes a perfect foil. A Kerry victory would have required a major new propaganda effort -- and maybe another terrorist attack that Kerry would have to respond to.

So President Bush is keeping us safe in the following perverse manner: By following Bin Laden's script so perfectly up to this point, Bush has made another attack unnecessary. Since the purpose of 9/11 was to rile us up, Al Qaeda need not hit us again as long as we stay riled.

Question 9. What can we expect Bin Laden to do next?

As the Iraq War drags on, it is becoming less and less popular. The Afghan War is mostly out of the public view, but to the extent that it also drains American lives and money with no end in sight, it also is losing support among those who are paying attention. The memory of 9/11 is starting to fade, as years without an attack convince more and more Americans that we are safe.

All of these factors threaten Bin Laden's plans. If President Bush is tempted into pulling our troops and TV cameras out of Iraq, Bin Laden loses. He needs the United States to continue playing the Great Satan role, because there are many secular Muslims who still hope to fit into the globalized world economy. He needs an enemy to focus their fear and anger, and only the United States is up to the job.

What's more, if he is going to bankrupt the US economy, he needs a wider war. At this point the US military is stretched thin, so a wider war would require a draft or some other unpopular measure for swelling the ranks. The American public would have to be very, very riled to agree to such a thing.

All of this points in one direction: Another attack on the United States, probably within the next year. Ideally, the trail would lead back to some area where the US doesn't currently have troops, and where there is an attackable enemy. Iran is an obvious choice, if Bin Laden can engineer it. But Syria would work as well, and may be easier to manipulate. Egypt, Pakistan, and/or Saudi Arabia could fill the bill if the attack on the US were coupled with a revolution against the corresponding US-supported government. So, for example, an attack on the US coming from Pakistan could be synchronized with the assassination of President Musharraf to draw American troops into that country.

Where will he attack? The target needs to fulfill two criteria: First, it needs to be justifiable to an Islamic audience. Bin Laden's pre-election message was probably aimed at them rather than us, and was intended to pre-justify the next attack. From an Islamic point of view, Bin Laden has now pleaded with the American electorate to be reasonable, and has been rejected. Any attack that follows will seem all the more justified. Second, the next attack needs to empower Bin Laden's most aggressive enemies in the United States. He wants us to continue striking first and asking questions later.

It is probably hopeless to try to read Bin Laden's mind in enough detail to guess his exact target. (And there is always the worry that we will do his thinking for him or point out something he has overlooked.) Undoubtedly much will depend on the opportunities that most easily present themselves. But one class of targets seems all too obvious: red-state megachurches whose leaders have made virulently anti-Islamic statements. They are relatively undefended. They are the heart of Bush's political power base, and so can be blamed for his policies. They can easily be portrayed as enemies of Islam. And, last but not least, an attack on a church would rile American hawks like nothing else.

Question 10. What can we do?

Obviously, if we have good intelligence and good police work, we can hope to catch attackers before they kill anyone. But this approach is unsatisfying, because Al Qaeda is patient, and will keep sending attackers until one gets through. To the extent that we are able to track down Al Qaeda's leaders, including Bin Laden himself, that also works in our favor. But Al Qaeda is a movement, not the work of one man or even a small inner circle. Its ideas and strategies are widely distributed. If Bin Laden's sword falls, someone will pick it up.

To a certain extent, the logic of reprisal is irresistible. Who can sit quietly while someone repeatedly hits his face, even if he knows the attacker only wants him to strike back? Ignoring one blow just invites the next. America is not a land of Quakers and Mennonites. If attacked, it is inevitable that we will respond.

However, we need not respond with overwhelming force that kills the innocent and guilty alike. It is important that we husband and cultivate the moral capital that an attack will give us, not spend it all (and then some) in an over-reaching reprisal. This was the mistake Bush made in Iraq. The world was on our side -- yes, even France -- when we brought down the Taliban. If we had captured Bin Laden in Tora Bora and declared ourselves satisfied, we could have gained stature, even in much of the Islamic world.

We need to realize that we play to the same audience as Bin Laden: those Muslims trying to choose between the twin dreams of the Caliphate and of finding their own place in the world economy. Anything that persuades them that the world is open to them works in our favor. Anything that closes the door on them works for Bin Laden.

Most of all, we Americans need to keep a leash on our own radicals. They are not working in our interests any more than Bin Laden is working in the interests of ordinary Muslims. The extremists on both sides serve each other, not the people they claim to represent. The cycle of attack-and-reprisal strengthens radicals on both both sides at the expense of those in the middle who just want to live their lives.

In the face of the next attack, be slow to embrace radical, violent, or angry solutions. The center must hold.

#2 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 11 November 2004 - 08:16 PM

I think there is a 95% chance that Bin Laden is dead already.

#3 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 11 November 2004 - 08:37 PM

Actually Mind there is a near 0% chance that he is dead as he has made repeated new videos (confirmed) that are referring to current events that have been happening in Iraq and elsewhere. The CIA (and FBI) have confirmed through combined voice and facial recognition software that the videos were genuine.

Bin Laden is definitely still out there but he has distanced himself from the front office.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 12 November 2004 - 01:04 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 11 November 2004 - 08:51 PM

I think there is a 95% chance he is not dead. That last bin laden type reffered to current events, and it was him. Why do you think he is dead?

Edit: Beat me too it lazarus :)

#5 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 11 November 2004 - 11:42 PM

Bin Laden is irrelevant.

Great article by the way, I'm printing it out for my Uncle Bill (a banker, business exec, neo-con type) to read this weekend.

#6 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 11 November 2004 - 11:45 PM

To a certain extent, the logic of reprisal is irresistible. Who can sit quietly while someone repeatedly hits his face, even if he knows the attacker only wants him to strike back?


[huh] Um, how about Bush's man JC, turn the other cheek yadayada.

Or as the bumper sticker asks, "Who would Jesus bomb?" [sfty]

#7 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 12 November 2004 - 02:34 AM

Don, Arafat is almost irrelevant but could stll have some surprises for us. Bin Laden is a fox to our hounds. However do not presume him to be *irrelevent.*

That mistake has already *Bin Made*; twice. :))

#8 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 12 November 2004 - 05:39 PM

FORMER HEAD OF CIA'S OSAMA BIN LADEN UNIT SAYS THE QAEDA LEADER HAS SECURED RELIGIOUS APPROVAL TO USE A NUCLEAR BOMB AGAINST AMERICANS
Fri Nov 12 2004 12:02:34 ET

Osama bin Laden now has religious approval to use a nuclear device against Americans, says the former head of the CIA unit charged with tracking down the Saudi terrorist. The former agent, Michael Scheuer, speaks to Steve Kroft in his first television interview without disguise to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Nov. 14 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

Scheuer was until recently known as the "anonymous" author of two books critical of the West's response to bin Laden and al Qaeda, the most recent of which is titled Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. No one in the West knows more about the Qaeda leader than Scheuer, who has tracked him since the mid-1980s. The CIA allowed him to write the books provided he remain anonymous, but now is allowing him to reveal himself for the first time on Sunday's broadcast; he formally leaves the Agency today (12).

Even if bin Laden had a nuclear weapon, he probably wouldn't have used it for a lack of proper religious authority - authority he has now. "[Bin Laden] secured from a Saudi sheik...a rather long treatise on the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the Americans," says Scheuer. "[The treatise] found that he was perfectly within his rights to use them. Muslims argue that the United States is responsible for millions of dead Muslims around the world, so reciprocity would mean you could kill millions of Americans," Scheuer tells Kroft.

Scheuer says bin Laden was criticized by some Muslims for the 9/11 attack because he killed so many people without enough warning and before offering to help convert them to Islam. But now bin Laden has addressed the American people and given fair warning. "They're intention is to end the war as soon as they can and to ratchet up the pain for the Americans until we get out of their region....If they acquire the weapon, they will use it, whether it's chemical, biological or some sort of nuclear weapon," says Scheuer.

As the head of the CIA unit charged with tracking bin Laden from 1996 to 1999, Scheuer says he never had enough people to do the job right. He blames former CIA Director George Tenet. "One of the questions that should have been asked of Mr. Tenet was why were there always enough people for the public relations office, for the academic outreach office, for the diversity and multi-cultural office? All those things are admirable and necessary but none of them are protecting the American people from a foreign threat," says Scheuer.

And the threat posed by bin Laden is also underestimated, says Scheuer. "I think our leaders over the last decade have done the American people a disservice...continuing to characterize Osama bin Laden as a thug, as a gangster," he says. "Until we respect him, sir, we are going to die in numbers that are probably unnecessary, yes. He's a very, very talented man and a very worthy opponent," he tells Kroft.

Until today (12), Scheuer was a senior official in the CIA's counter terrorism unit and a special advisor to the head of the agency's bin Laden unit.

#9 jaydfox

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 12 November 2004 - 09:41 PM

Interesting. A nuclear weapon would certainly not deter the current administration's intent to fight terror: quite the contrary, it would provide far more political capital than 9/11 ever did. Combined with Bush's "mandate", the neo-cons could go as far as they pleased (well, as far as our credit will allow us to spend...). As the administration would argue, you cannot appease an enemy so evil and inhuman that they would use a nuclear weapon against innocent civilians (no comments about 1945 please). There would be no alternative but a fight to the bitter end to eliminate them.

Which is exactly the kind of balkanization that the author of the article I posted was talking about: pushing both sides to the extreme. For every extremist (on either side) that was pushed to the middle because they just wanted all the violence to end and they didn't want to be a part of it anymore, several apathetic people in the middle would be pushed to one extreme or the other. A nuclear bomb on American soil, if linked to al Qaeda, would benefit the agendas of both sides immensely.

Which is scary, because in some ways I still am sympathetic to the neo-con philosophy: sometimes the hawks really do win the day. We can't just give up because we might not win the day. But if we don't prevail, and we pushed the stakes so high, then we have so much more to lose. More to gain if we lose, but more to lose if we don't win (even if we don't lose, i.e. a stalemate). And I'm not a gambling kind of person, so this scares me...

#10 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 12 November 2004 - 10:26 PM

Don, Arafat is almost irrelevant but could stll have some surprises for us.  Bin Laden is a fox to our hounds.  However do not presume him to be *irrelevent.* 

That mistake has already  *Bin Made*; twice.  :))


I was actually think about this last night after I made the post. Irrelevant is probably too strong. Afterall, Bin Laden (and I'm also, for the sake of brevity, considering "Bin Laden" to be all of the senior Al Qaeda leadership, especial Ayman al-Zawahri) is obviously a master of strategies and tactics. Yet I would contend that the hydra analogy does in fact hold up (I may have left too much ambiguity in my initial statement). Two heads grow where once there was one, and although the progeny will not carry over the original perspective with 100% accuracy I think it is safe to say that Bin Laden and his hench man are far too clever to leave anything but high fidelity copies.

#11 knite

  • Guest
  • 296 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 16 November 2004 - 06:21 AM

In actuality, a nuclear weapon would be a hinder to the goals of Al'Qaeda. One nuclear weapon used by any terrorist group would send the WORLD, not just the US, into a rabid hunt for terrorism. The fear around the world would run high, and none would want that kind of risk or power running about. If you wanted a way to band the world together as One, thats your ticket. Theres few things that band people together better than a common threat. And it would be threat to the world over, because if one group was able to get what they wanted by using a nuclear weapon (even a crude one), its not much of a step for any extremist group to do the same.

#12 mikelorrey

  • Guest
  • 131 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Grantham, NH

Posted 04 August 2006 - 12:32 AM

Bin Laden is irrelevant.

Great article by the way, I'm printing it out for my Uncle Bill (a banker, business exec, neo-con type) to read this weekend.


There are some significant flaws in this article, that you wouldn't spot if you were not well versed in revolutionary theory.

Polarization and radicalization are goals of bin Laden, but this is merely a means for him to control the vicious cycle of atrocity and radicalization, particularly if he has control of the channels of agitation and propaganda. The problem is that he doesn't control either of these things.

The party that takes command of this cycle and the agit-prop channels is the party that wins: who keeps their forward momentum, who publicly appears to be achieving successes. People have an inherent desire to belong to the winning team, so while radicalization works for motivating ruling cadres, most people just get pissed off and will join which ever team seems to be most qualified to return them to a peaceful condition, as well as less to blame for the carnage (this is, for example, why Hezbollah is producing so much fake coverage of "atrocities", particularly in Qana, where they were using 12-24 hour-dead bodies (as seen by the rigor mortis) to depict alleged 'victims' who were claimed to have been killed an hour earlier, why Hezbollah collapsed the building in Qana 7 hours after the allegedly responsible airstrike, long after recon BDA had determined the building was still standing).

Furthermore, radicalizing the muslim world does nothing to radicalize people in the US, nor is bin Laden pumping the sort of money into the radical left in the US as the Soviets did during Vietnam. The US has no draft anymore, so there is no personal threat to the bodies of college and high school students, so they are unmotivated to protest against the war, since they are at no personal risk.

No, bin Laden is reading from a 1960 edition of the KGB's "Revolution for Dummies". Unfortunately, times, and technology, have changed. People have learned to spot agit-prop tricks.

#13 Dream

  • Guest
  • 47 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Annapolis, Maryland, USA

Posted 21 August 2006 - 05:21 AM

mikelorry, I agree with your point.

I see a limited nuclear attack in our future. - Not because we coudn't stop it. Because it would serve the agendas of men who would benefit. Always look where the money goes.

The nuclear attack might not even be in the US, but I suspect it will happen somewhere. Americans are primed for this event, they will accept it and it will give those powers that be even more control as citizens sacrifice their will for their safety.What a tragedy. It might be biological instead of nuclear, but it will be massive in any case.

When it happens, understand that it was pre-planned...not by the terrorists, or at least not just by them, but a plan set in motion by the very people you think have your best interests at heart - they do not. Mearly the threat of this has enabled laws in America to be passed that would never otherwise be passed by Congress.

Once again, ignorance is the cause of our suffering, and a non-sanctioned, non-approved education is our cure.

#14 halcyondays

  • Guest
  • 93 posts
  • 0

Posted 17 November 2006 - 06:50 AM

If you want to stop terrorism you need to help the people economically. Most of the people who actually are involved in these terrorist attacks (at least in the middle east) are not well educated, they are poor, and they have little hope for a better life. So of course they are looking for some meaning in their lives and the promise of a better afterlife is appealing.

Going to war in their country and killing their family and friends will only drive more people towards terrorism. At it's most basic level the reasons for terrorism are social in nature. If you can help the people you are helping yourself by making it more difficult for terrorists to recruit people.

#15 MichaelAnissimov

  • Guest
  • 905 posts
  • 1
  • Location:San Francisco, CA

Posted 17 November 2006 - 02:06 PM

No new videos in years, Bin Laden is dead. He was suffering from numerous health ailments years ago.

#16 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 18 November 2006 - 12:56 AM

The nuclear attack might not even be in the US, but I suspect it will happen somewhere. Americans are primed for this event, they will accept it and it will give those powers that be even more control as citizens sacrifice their will for their safety.What a tragedy. It might be biological instead of nuclear, but it will be massive in any case.

When it happens, understand that it was pre-planned...not by the terrorists, or at least not just by them, but a plan set in motion by the very people you think have your best interests at heart -


I really dislike Bush and the neocons, but this conspiracy mongering.... [sad]

#17 vortexentity

  • Guest
  • 243 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Florida

Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:13 AM

If this war keeps up much longer it might well be fought by robots on the US side. This administration is not going to stand down until the oil reserve is secure and a friendly to the US administrative government is in place in Iraq.

This war is sharpening the Islamist ability to fight a guerrilla war and stir up the Arab street. It is also working to cause the US and its allies to develop advanced weapons capable of dealing with a guerrilla war. I think that the administration is working with AlCIAda to help out the defense industry since we did not have a serious threat after the fall of the Soviet Union.

#18 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:33 AM

No offense Michael but your suspicion is just wrong. Bin Laden's last public broadcast was in April of this year and some other communiques have been intercepted more recently. The intelligence services are pretty sure he is quite alive and somewhere near the Pakistan-Afghan border if not actually being protected by the Taliban again.

That situation is deteriorating not getting better.

http://www.cnn.com/2.../binladen.tape/

Purported bin Laden tape denounces West's response to Hamas
Message calls for supporters to fight peacekeepers in Sudan

Sunday, April 23, 2006; Posted: 11:52 p.m. EDT (03:52 GMT)

***
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said U.S. officials believe it is bin Laden's voice. (Watch new anger at U.S. citizens from the taped speaker -- 2:50)

"The intelligence community has informed the president that they believe this is authentic," he said.


(hankconn)
I suspect the military will have its hands on some advanced technology capable of really fighting and winning a guerilla war in the coming years. Our success in Iraq and the following explosion of Iraqi business, culture, and well-being could really go a long way in raising the standard of education and standard of living (throughout the entire Middle East), which would go quite a long way in stomping out deranged religious visions Islamic law being imposed on the entire world in the mass population.


Hankconn what are you talking about?

Technology and capitalism are not winning this battle until there is stability on the ground, they are not bringing such stability. We cannot win this war or any war by remote control or by ignoring the realities in the field.

This is not a video game, it is terrible bloody travesty that needs to be resolved by creating a new paradigm supported by a pragmatic strategy with realistic tactics and no longer adhering to what was the propaganda that this administration's political machine promoted in order to advance its domestic interests.

I suggest a lot more global studies with a broader attention to both cultural, as well as 20th Century history that is not focused on only one side's perspective of what was important. Those who believe their own propaganda and do not know their enemy intimately have already lost, no matter how much power they think they command. IN fact when ignorant in this manner the bigger they are the harder they fall.

Education, food, and quality entertainment would probably be massively more appealing than global war.


This would be true if it had any bearing to the reality on the ground.


Scott I agree and IMHO too much of it is going on, by all sides. It is counter productive.

#19 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 18 November 2006 - 04:22 AM

BTW I was wrong, the last video from Bin Laden was in Sept of this year.

http://english.aljaz...ArchiveID=36076

#20 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 18 November 2006 - 05:43 AM

Hankconn you are amusing.

The Republicans and in particular this administration have so screwed things up that Democrats and Papa have to come in to get them to go past their denial and face reality and you haven't even waited for the results in order to attempt to shift the blame for the messed up situation on the ones that had the least to do with it.

I would say it was blaming the victim except that to a great extent the Democrats have themselves to blame too. However it is still blatant scapegoating before the fact. Are you going to blame the media next?

#21 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 18 November 2006 - 05:51 AM

(hankconn)

LL
This would be true if it had any bearing to the reality on the ground.


That's not what people quite have in mind at the moment. If things shape up, I imagine this will become very apparent.


Quite simply Hank you can't get there from here. It is obvious that the wrong tactics are being used to support an empty strategy; ask Baker if you don't believe me.

The conditions are rapidly deteriorating and the means of reversal are fast slipping away.

#22 salesman

  • Guest
  • 115 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 April 2007 - 05:50 AM

http://video.google....rrorstorm&hl=en

#23 Ganshauk

  • Guest
  • 46 posts
  • 0

Posted 16 June 2007 - 10:16 AM

If I had any say, I would keep that SOB alive and force him to make confusing broadcasts from time to time.

Not only would that keep him from being a martyr, it just might confound his people into making the one mistake needed to nail them.

Hell, I'd even find look-alikes to do it if he was accidentally killed.

Come to think of it, I'd just kill his sorry ass and find a look-alike anyway.

#24 soren

  • Guest
  • 36 posts
  • 0

Posted 25 September 2007 - 03:32 AM

Hah, I like that... as I say often, without discipline, wheres the fun.
I just wanted to say this... After mostly a lifetime wringing my hands and saying things like "No!" a lot, at the endless stupidity of mankind, I feared two things lately..
One, the Iraq invasion,
And two, the rebound onto Iran.
"Please help me out here, -Ahmadinejad, just dont dont make the situation worse than it already is" I have thought constantly over the last few months, and oh no!
Sanity will not prevail. If the occasional outbursts of his could be forgiven as insane reactionary pre war propaganda, by a beleaguered president, (newly installed by a gangster cabal) - if the suicideal economic eccentricities could be put down to some weird conflict between ancient quabalistic numerological arithmetic, and modern global economics, then one can breath a sigh of relief...
Aha! He is coming to America to show all he is simply another world leader, trying to keep on top of his own national problems.... A sane, sensible fellow.. one of us..
Oh no!
He thwarts my simplistic designs once again!
No.. Ahmadinejad has come on a hate building tour of your US universities, obviously on behalf of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.
I foolishly tried to embed a video clip of my man there, charming the assemblage at Columbia University with his comedy routine about Iranian homosexuals.
Well, you'll all probably see it on your TV news...
WWIII here we come!

#25 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 28 October 2010 - 08:57 AM

I dedicate this one to the neo-cons out there, myself having at one time subscribed to the philosophy.
URL: http://dailykos.com/...11/10/01247/557

Terrorist Strategy 101: a quiz
by Pericles
Tue Nov 9th, 2004 at 22:57:00 PST

(From the diaries -- kos)

Instructions. For Questions 1 and 2, assume you are a violent extremist. In other words, there is some issue (it doesn't really matter what) for which you are willing to take up arms and kill people, even innocent people.

Question 1: What is the first and biggest obstacle between you and victory?

If you answered "People on the other side of my issue," go sit in the corner. That answer is completely wrong. If you assume terrorists think that way, everything they do will seem like total insanity.

The first and biggest obstacle to your victory is that the vast majority of the people who sympathize with your issue are not violent extremists. They may agree with you in principle. They may even sound like violent extremists late at night over their beverage of choice. But when the hammer comes down, they won't be there. There are weeds in the garden and final exams coming up and deadlines at the office. Good luck with that car bombing. Call me next time, maybe things will have settled down by then.

Most people, most of the time, just want to get along. They'll accept a little inconvenience, ignore a few insults, and smile at people they hate if it allows them to get on with their lives. Most people on both sides of your issue just wish the issue would go away. If you're not careful, those apathetic majorities will get together and craft a compromise. And where's your revolution then?

So your first goal as a violent extremist is not to kill your enemies, but to radicalize the apathetic majority on your side of the issue. If everyone becomes a violent extremist, then you (as one of the early violent extremists) are a leader of consequence. Conversely, if a reasonable compromise is worked out, you are a nuisance.

Question 2: In radicalizing your sympathizers, who is your best ally?

No points awarded for "the media" or "sympathetic foreign governments". In radicalizing your apathetic sympathizers, you have no better ally than the violent extremists on the other side. Only they can convince your people that compromise is impossible. Only they can raise your countrymen's level of fear and despair to the point that large numbers are willing to take up arms and follow your lead. A few blown up apartment buildings and dead schoolchildren will get you more recruits than the best revolutionary tracts ever written.

Perversely, this means that you are the best ally of the extremists on the other side. That doesn't mean you love or even talk to each other -- they are, after all, vile and despicable demons. But at this stage in the process your interests align. Both of you want to invert the bell curve, to flatten out that big hump in the middle and drive people to the edges. That's why extremists come in pairs: Caesar and Pompey, the Nazis and the Communists, Sharon and Arafat, Bush and Bin Laden. Each side needs a demonic opposite in order to galvanize its supporters.

Naive observers frequently decry the apparent counter-productivity of extremist attacks. Don't the leaders of Hamas understand that every suicide bombing makes the Israelis that much more determined not to give the Palestinians a state? Don't they realize that the Israeli government will strike back even harder, and inflict even more suffering on the Palestinian people? Of course they do; they're not idiots. The Israeli response is exactly what they're counting on. More airstrikes, more repression, more poverty -- fewer opportunities for normal life to get in the way of the Great Struggle.

The cycle of violence may be vicious, but it is not pointless. Each round of strike-and-counterstrike makes the political center less tenable. The surviving radical leaders on each side energize their respective bases and cement their respective holds on power. The first round of the playoffs is always the two extremes against the center. Only after the center is vanquished will you meet your radical counterparts in the championship round.

Question 3: What is Bin Laden's ultimate goal?

This is an easy one. Bin Laden has been very explicit: He wants a return of the Caliphate. In other words, he wants a re-unified Islamic nation stretching from Indonesia to Morocco, governed by leaders faithful to the Koran.

This goal is quite popular in the Islamic world. The Muslim man-in-the-street knows his history: When the Dar al-Islam was unified, it was the most feared empire in the world. Baghdad, the home of the Caliph, was the center of civilization, leading the world in learning and artistry as well as power. (Europe may well have lost its classical heritage if Muslim libraries hadn't preserved Greek manuscripts through the Dark Ages. Just about any English word beginning with al refers to an Islamic invention: algebra, algorithm, alchemy, and even alcohol -- which was an Arabian process for distilling perfumes long before the West started using it to make hard liquor). Who wouldn't want that back?

Well, for starters, the current rulers of the two dozen or so nations of the Dar al-Islam wouldn't want the Caliphate back. They've got a cushy deal and they know it: They run a very profitable gas station for the West. Keep the people in check, keep the price of oil low enough not to wreck the Western economies, don't piss off the United States badly enough to bring the troops in, and they're set.

These leaders are Bin Laden's near enemies. (That list of near enemies included Saddam Hussein when he was in power.) The far enemy is the power that backs them all up: the United States. (You may look askance at the assertion that the US was backing up Saddam's Iraq. But Saddam became our enemy only when he began to unite other nations (i.e., Kuwait) under his rule. In the Reagan years, when Iran was threatening to extend its boundaries at Iraq's expense, Saddam was our friend.)

Question 4: What is Bin Laden's immediate goal?

If you've been paying attention, you should get this one right: His immediate goal is to radicalize the hundreds of millions of Muslims who sympathize with the vision of a restored Caliphate, but have better things to do with their lives than join the jihad. A particular problem for Bin Laden are all the Muslims who think that they can find an acceptable place for themselves in a world order dominated by the United States.

I won't insult your intelligence by asking you who his best allies are in reaching this goal: President Bush, obviously, and all of the neo-conservatives in the Pentagon who push for the most aggressive response to the terrorist threat. Also the Christian leaders like Franklin (son of Billy) Graham, who regularly denounce Islam in terms that look fabulous on Al Qaeda's equivalent of the locker-room bulletin board. John Ashcroft -- and anyone else who mistreats assimilating Arabs and thereby convinces them that they will never really be welcome in America -- is also an ally.

It doesn't matter how much they hate him or denounce his deeds; anyone who radicalizes Muslims is doing Bin Laden's work for him. President Bush may as well have been reading from an Al Qaeda script when he referred to the War on Terror as a "crusade". Muslims know their history and know exactly what a crusade is: Christians invade and steal your land. People who didn't believe this when they heard it from Bin Laden have now heard it from the Crusader-in-Chief.

Question 5: What was the purpose of 9/11?

No points for "To intimidate the United States into retreating from the Middle East." If the US had immediately decided to wash its hands of the Middle East, a variety of secular gangsters like Mubarak and Musharraf and Hussein would have started fighting it out amongst themselves. The odds were small that an Allah-fearing Caliph would arise from such a struggle. Whether the eventual outcome would have been good or bad for the United States is debatable, but it would have been terrible for Bin Laden.

Like all attacks in the bell-curve-inverting stage, the purpose of 9/11 was to provoke a military response. Prior to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, most Muslims had never seen a direct victim of the United States. Many have claimed that the Israelis are really American proxies, and so the Palestinians are victims of America. (Some have gone so far as to claim that the Serbians were American proxies, but that was always far-fetched.) Proxies, however, can never compete with real live American soldiers. And despite the occasional bombing of Lebanon or Syria or even Iraq, it is hard to paint the Israelis as anything more than a regional threat. Pakistanis and Indonesians may sympathize with the Palestinians in a distant sort of way, but they can't raise a credible fear of Jewish tanks rolling down the streets of Islamabad or Jakarta.

Now, thanks to President Bush and the magic of al-Jazeera, every Muslim with working eyesight has seen Muslim women and children killed or horribly disfigured by Americans. And Americans are everywhere; any one of them might be working for the CIA. American troops and ships and aircraft have a global reach. No matter where in the Dar al-Islam you may be, you could be under American attack in a matter of hours. Those screaming people on TV could be you and your family.

Question 6: What was the point of the Madrid bombing?

Trick question. The point of the Madrid bombing was exactly as it appeared: to intimidate the Spanish into taking their troops out of Iraq. And, by extension, to intimidate all the other members of Bush's coalition.

Bin Laden wants to fight Americans, because America scares his sympathizers and energizes his base. But Spaniards and Poles and Salvadorans just confuse the issue. Also, an allied presence
diminishes American expense and American casualties, both of which are key to Bin Laden's strategy.

Question 7: What is Bin Laden's long-term strategy to defeat the United States?

Some people find it hard to believe that Bin Laden can even imagine that he will defeat the United States, much less that he has a plan to do so. But he believes in miracles, and he began his military career by participating in the defeat of the once-mighty Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Bin Laden has been very clear about his strategy, which depends on the same principles that won the Soviet/Afghan War. In his taped message of October, 2004 he said (according to an al-Jazeera translation):

All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.
This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat. All Praise is due to Allah. So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.

In other words, he wants to draw the well paid, lavishly supplied American soldiers into wars on his territory, where he can fight cheaply. The more American troops he can attract, the more expensive the war will be, until even the economy of the United States can no longer support it.

This idea is not new. Abu-Ubayd al-Qurashi wrote in Al-Ansar in December 2002 that Al Qaeda would imitate the Vietnamese strategy of attacking the "center of gravity" of the United States. Then, the center of gravity was American popular opinion, so the real Vietnam War was fought on television. But things have changed:

A conviction has formed among the mujahedin that American public opinion is not the center of gravity in America. ... This time it is clearly apparent that the American economy is the American center of gravity. ... Supporting this penetrating strategic view is that the Disunited States of America are a mixture of nationalities, ethnic groups, and races united only by the "American Dream" or, to put it more correctly, the worship of the dollar, which they openly call "the Almighty Dollar."

Currently, the Iraq and Afghan Wars together are costing the US something like $60-80 billion a year. That's a nasty load and is one reason why our national debt is sky-rocketing, but it is still within the long-term carrying capacity of the American economy. However, this level of effort is not getting the job done in either country. More American troops and American money will ultimately be needed, particularly if Bin Laden can continue to strip away our allies. If he really wants to destroy the American economy, though, Bin Laden must widen the war into additional Middle Eastern countries.

Question 8. Why didn't Al Qaeda attack the United States before the election?

On the evening before the election, I was on a street corner waving a Kerry sign. The next guy over was waving a Bush sign. He put forward the following case: Of course Bin Laden wanted to intimidate us into leaving Iraq, of course he wanted Kerry elected, and of course he would have attacked us prior to the election if he could, but President Bush has so improved our homeland defenses and so wounded al Qaeda that Bin Laden no longer has the ability to launch a major attack inside the United States.

Let's put aside for the moment the thought that Timothy McVeigh was no genius, so you and I could probably launch a major terrorist attack in the US if we were so inclined and sufficiently determined. The sign-waver's logic fails to account for Bin Laden's goals and strategy: While Bin Laden wanted Spain to leave Iraq, he wants us to stay in. He's counting on it. Moreover, President Bush is so hated in the Islamic world that he makes a perfect foil. A Kerry victory would have required a major new propaganda effort -- and maybe another terrorist attack that Kerry would have to respond to.

So President Bush is keeping us safe in the following perverse manner: By following Bin Laden's script so perfectly up to this point, Bush has made another attack unnecessary. Since the purpose of 9/11 was to rile us up, Al Qaeda need not hit us again as long as we stay riled.

Question 9. What can we expect Bin Laden to do next?

As the Iraq War drags on, it is becoming less and less popular. The Afghan War is mostly out of the public view, but to the extent that it also drains American lives and money with no end in sight, it also is losing support among those who are paying attention. The memory of 9/11 is starting to fade, as years without an attack convince more and more Americans that we are safe.

All of these factors threaten Bin Laden's plans. If President Bush is tempted into pulling our troops and TV cameras out of Iraq, Bin Laden loses. He needs the United States to continue playing the Great Satan role, because there are many secular Muslims who still hope to fit into the globalized world economy. He needs an enemy to focus their fear and anger, and only the United States is up to the job.

What's more, if he is going to bankrupt the US economy, he needs a wider war. At this point the US military is stretched thin, so a wider war would require a draft or some other unpopular measure for swelling the ranks. The American public would have to be very, very riled to agree to such a thing.

All of this points in one direction: Another attack on the United States, probably within the next year. Ideally, the trail would lead back to some area where the US doesn't currently have troops, and where there is an attackable enemy. Iran is an obvious choice, if Bin Laden can engineer it. But Syria would work as well, and may be easier to manipulate. Egypt, Pakistan, and/or Saudi Arabia could fill the bill if the attack on the US were coupled with a revolution against the corresponding US-supported government. So, for example, an attack on the US coming from Pakistan could be synchronized with the assassination of President Musharraf to draw American troops into that country.

Where will he attack? The target needs to fulfill two criteria: First, it needs to be justifiable to an Islamic audience. Bin Laden's pre-election message was probably aimed at them rather than us, and was intended to pre-justify the next attack. From an Islamic point of view, Bin Laden has now pleaded with the American electorate to be reasonable, and has been rejected. Any attack that follows will seem all the more justified. Second, the next attack needs to empower Bin Laden's most aggressive enemies in the United States. He wants us to continue striking first and asking questions later.

It is probably hopeless to try to read Bin Laden's mind in enough detail to guess his exact target. (And there is always the worry that we will do his thinking for him or point out something he has overlooked.) Undoubtedly much will depend on the opportunities that most easily present themselves. But one class of targets seems all too obvious: red-state megachurches whose leaders have made virulently anti-Islamic statements. They are relatively undefended. They are the heart of Bush's political power base, and so can be blamed for his policies. They can easily be portrayed as enemies of Islam. And, last but not least, an attack on a church would rile American hawks like nothing else.

Question 10. What can we do?

Obviously, if we have good intelligence and good police work, we can hope to catch attackers before they kill anyone. But this approach is unsatisfying, because Al Qaeda is patient, and will keep sending attackers until one gets through. To the extent that we are able to track down Al Qaeda's leaders, including Bin Laden himself, that also works in our favor. But Al Qaeda is a movement, not the work of one man or even a small inner circle. Its ideas and strategies are widely distributed. If Bin Laden's sword falls, someone will pick it up.

To a certain extent, the logic of reprisal is irresistible. Who can sit quietly while someone repeatedly hits his face, even if he knows the attacker only wants him to strike back? Ignoring one blow just invites the next. America is not a land of Quakers and Mennonites. If attacked, it is inevitable that we will respond.

However, we need not respond with overwhelming force that kills the innocent and guilty alike. It is important that we husband and cultivate the moral capital that an attack will give us, not spend it all (and then some) in an over-reaching reprisal. This was the mistake Bush made in Iraq. The world was on our side -- yes, even France -- when we brought down the Taliban. If we had captured Bin Laden in Tora Bora and declared ourselves satisfied, we could have gained stature, even in much of the Islamic world.

We need to realize that we play to the same audience as Bin Laden: those Muslims trying to choose between the twin dreams of the Caliphate and of finding their own place in the world economy. Anything that persuades them that the world is open to them works in our favor. Anything that closes the door on them works for Bin Laden.

Most of all, we Americans need to keep a leash on our own radicals. They are not working in our interests any more than Bin Laden is working in the interests of ordinary Muslims. The extremists on both sides serve each other, not the people they claim to represent. The cycle of attack-and-reprisal strengthens radicals on both both sides at the expense of those in the middle who just want to live their lives.

In the face of the next attack, be slow to embrace radical, violent, or angry solutions. The center must hold.


If Bin Laden wasn't a manic depressive (carefully examine the evidence, and his family's medical history), he would have long ago concluded that his campaign to neutralize the so-called "far" and "near" enemies of Islam, and reconstitute the caliphate, to be an impossible and futile campaign of destruction.

Edited by Rol82, 28 October 2010 - 01:28 PM.


#26 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 28 October 2010 - 09:29 AM

I think there is a 95% chance that Bin Laden is dead already.


Bin Laden is too much of an egotistical hypochondriac to sacrifice his own life, or to expose himself to mortal danger. In all likelihood, he's living an insular life in North Waziristan, surrounded immediately by a very small group of fanatical followers, and at the core of onion layers of Al-Qaeda members and sympathizers. The recordings are the only evidence that he continues a pitiful existence, and in spite of the screaming insistence of conspirators, there is no convincing evidence that they're not genuine examples of proof of life. The media arm of Al-Qaeda, al-Sahab, does indeed use video editing software to create the impression that the video subjects are healthy and living comfortably, but beyond this deception, the actual subjects are indisputably authentic. Bin Laden has ceased using any device that might be detectable by surveillance technology, he probably only conveys messages through his trusted son Mohammed, and is reputed to be move frequently between safe houses---probably not staying in one location more than once, and paying generously for protection, which is a service of towering importance to the Pashtun that likely harbor and deify him. He's not taking any chances whatsoever, but if we were to make a serious effort towards arming the Pakistani military and displaced maliks, there's a slim chance of success, but such a course would come with considerable costs. Otherwise, we only have the Predator and Reaper drones as the sharp end of the stick.

As for his health...
-He is not on dialysis, nor with only one kidney.
-He suffers from mild-hypertension.
-He is likely a serious hypochondriac.
-He likely suffers from reactive hypoglycemia.
-He likely suffers from manic depression, with perhaps some schizoid symptoms.

Edited by Rol82, 28 October 2010 - 01:28 PM.


#27 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 28 October 2010 - 09:59 AM

Don, Arafat is almost irrelevant but could stll have some surprises for us. Bin Laden is a fox to our hounds. However do not presume him to be *irrelevent.*

That mistake has already *Bin Made*; twice. :))


I was actually think about this last night after I made the post. Irrelevant is probably too strong. Afterall, Bin Laden (and I'm also, for the sake of brevity, considering "Bin Laden" to be all of the senior Al Qaeda leadership, especial Ayman al-Zawahri) is obviously a master of strategies and tactics. Yet I would contend that the hydra analogy does in fact hold up (I may have left too much ambiguity in my initial statement). Two heads grow where once there was one, and although the progeny will not carry over the original perspective with 100% accuracy I think it is safe to say that Bin Laden and his hench man are far too clever to leave anything but high fidelity copies.


Bin Laden has never been a natural leader, since he has been afflicted with an exceedingly low self-esteem, and has a very delicate constitution that's susceptible to stress. So throughout his tenure, he has delegated a great deal of authority. Through my research, this is the operational structure that I put together...

Emir> Osama Bin Laden

Deputy Emir>Ayman al-Zawahiri

Military Chief>IIlyas Kashmiri (But still uncertain)

Chief of Operations Af/Pak>Sheikh al Masri (recently deceased, so the current chief is uncertain because so much of the senior leadership has been neutralized, and there are no suitable candidates)

Chief of External Operations>Adnan Shukrijumah

Security Coordinator>Abu Kashaal al-Iraqi

Liason>Mohammed Bin Laden

Finance Chief>Vacant since the strike against Mustafa Abu Yazid in May

Finance Committee>Abu Fadhl Mahkee and Abu Hammam al Saudi

Spokesmen>Adam Gadahn and Abu Yahya al-Libi

Chief Theologian>Ayman al-Zawahiri

Fatwa Committee> Abu Faraj al-Yemeni, Abu Qatada, and Abu Hafs "The Mauritanian"

Shura Council>Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, Abu Farajal-Yemeni, and Saif-al-Adel

Military Committee>Saif al Adel, Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, Illyas Kashmiri, and Abu Khaleed Madani

Charitable Finance Arm>Abu Rida al Sura and Wael Hamza Julaidan

Due to operational losses, Al-Qaeda has ceased to be a tightly regulated, hierarchical organization, and has been replaced by franchise organizations that borrow its brand credibility. There is no evidence that Bin Laden involves himself with much of the decision-making anymore, and has likely ceded near complete authority to his subordinates. However, he has a symbolic value that shouldn't be understated.

Edited by Rol82, 28 October 2010 - 01:38 PM.


#28 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 28 October 2010 - 10:10 AM

No offense Michael but your suspicion is just wrong. Bin Laden's last public broadcast was in April of this year and some other communiques have been intercepted more recently. The intelligence services are pretty sure he is quite alive and somewhere near the Pakistan-Afghan border if not actually being protected by the Taliban again.

That situation is deteriorating not getting better.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/23/.../binladen.tape/

Purported bin Laden tape denounces West's response to Hamas
Message calls for supporters to fight peacekeepers in Sudan

Sunday, April 23, 2006; Posted: 11:52 p.m. EDT (03:52 GMT)

***
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said U.S. officials believe it is bin Laden's voice. (Watch new anger at U.S. citizens from the taped speaker -- 2:50)

"The intelligence community has informed the president that they believe this is authentic," he said.


(hankconn)
I suspect the military will have its hands on some advanced technology capable of really fighting and winning a guerilla war in the coming years. Our success in Iraq and the following explosion of Iraqi business, culture, and well-being could really go a long way in raising the standard of education and standard of living (throughout the entire Middle East), which would go quite a long way in stomping out deranged religious visions Islamic law being imposed on the entire world in the mass population.


Hankconn what are you talking about?

Technology and capitalism are not winning this battle until there is stability on the ground, they are not bringing such stability. We cannot win this war or any war by remote control or by ignoring the realities in the field.

This is not a video game, it is terrible bloody travesty that needs to be resolved by creating a new paradigm supported by a pragmatic strategy with realistic tactics and no longer adhering to what was the propaganda that this administration's political machine promoted in order to advance its domestic interests.

I suggest a lot more global studies with a broader attention to both cultural, as well as 20th Century history that is not focused on only one side's perspective of what was important. Those who believe their own propaganda and do not know their enemy intimately have already lost, no matter how much power they think they command. IN fact when ignorant in this manner the bigger they are the harder they fall.

Education, food, and quality entertainment would probably be massively more appealing than global war.


This would be true if it had any bearing to the reality on the ground.


Scott I agree and IMHO too much of it is going on, by all sides. It is counter productive.


He seems to be following a pattern of releasing one video every three years, so I'd expect a new video by the New Year's end, perhaps coinciding with a minor attack of some sort--if successful.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users