Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > BREAKING: Al Qaeda Plans Major Assassination

BREAKING: Al Qaeda Plans Major Assassination
Thread Tools
CreepingDeth
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 12:10 AM
 
Drudge:

U.S. intelligence officials say a high-profile political assassination, triggered by the public release of a new message from Osama bin Laden, will lead off the next major al Qaeda terrorist attack, the WASHINGTON TIMES has learned.

The assassination plan is among new details of al Qaeda plots disclosed by U.S. officials familiar with intelligence reports who, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the killing could be carried out against a U.S. or foreign leader either in the United States or abroad.

The new details of al Qaeda's plans were found on a laptop computer belonging to arrested al Qaeda operative Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan of Pakistan, Bill Gertz is set to report in a page one blockbuster.

'We're talking about planning at the screwdriver level,' one official said. 'It is very detailed.'

Developing�
     
TheMosco
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 12:40 AM
 
Here is a little more detail:

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/s...=wn_wire_story

I hope that the leaking of Khan's name by the administration didn't screw up any sting operation pakistan had that would prevent something like this.
AXP
ΔΣΦ
     
zachs
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 12:41 AM
 
Will the Zero-Year curse live on?
     
BlackGriffen
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 02:28 AM
 


An assassination is the best of all possible events for Bush. Especially if it is someone like Dick Cheney or John Ashcroft - instant win for him. Hell, Bush getting assassinated would be very problematic for the Democrats. Even Cheyney would win in that case.

I can't think of a single target that would really damage the Bush administration's chance of winning. Al Qaeda would have to desperately want Bush (and/or his underlings) in office to carry out an assassination. Face it - a Bush admin victory is the best outcome for Al Qaeda because otherwise they'd lose their star recruiter.

The only possible way for an assassination to harm Bush's electoral chances is if it were to happen early enough for the sympathy and pity to die down, and if a backlash of "You can't even keep yourselves safe, how do you expect to keep us safe?" were to build up. I severely doubt that Kerry would have the spine to try that tactic, ever, and all of the liberal 527s will be discredited when they try it too early (called traitors, etc).

So, like I said, barring an unlikely backlash, an assassination is the best of all possible events for the Bush administration. Only an idiot would fail to see this, and thus it would seem that, if Al Qaeda attempts it, they see Bush's victory as the best of outcomes for them.

In other words,

BlackGriffen
     
CreepingDeth  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 02:32 AM
 
UPDATE
U.S. intelligence officials say a high-profile political assassination, triggered by the public release of a new message from Osama bin Laden, will lead off the next major al Qaeda terrorist attack, The Washington Times has learned. The assassination plan is among new details of al Qaeda plots disclosed by U.S. officials familiar with intelligence reports who, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the killing could be carried out against a U.S. or foreign leader either in the United States or abroad.

The officials mentioned Saudi Arabia and Yemen, two nations that are working with the United States in the battle against al Qaeda, as likely locales for the opening assassination.
The planning for the attacks to follow involves "multiple targets in multiple venues" across the United States, one official said. The new details of al Qaeda's plans were found on a laptop computer belonging to arrested al Qaeda operative Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan of Pakistan. _"We're talking about planning at the screwdriver level," one official said. "It is very detailed."

Khan was arrested July 13 in Lahore, Pakistan, along with Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian who was indicted in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa and was on the FBI's list of most-wanted terrorists.

U.S. and allied counterterrorism officials are pursuing leads on other terrorists based on the data from Khan's seized laptop. At least one arrest in Britain has been made so far, and others are expected, the officials said.

Additionally, U.S. intelligence officials said they think that several al Qaeda terrorists already in the United States are part of the plot, although their identities and locations are not known.
The targets, in addition to the financial institutions in New York, Washington and Newark, N.J., that have been the subject of public warnings, include such economic-related targets as oil and gas facilities with a view toward disrupting the November election.

"The goal of the next attack is twofold: to damage the U.S. economy and to undermine the U.S. election," the official said. "The view of al Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush.'_"

The officials also said the terrorist group has begun using female members for preattack surveillance and possibly as suicide bombers, thinking that women will have an easier time getting past security checkpoints at airports, borders and ports.

The al Qaeda attack plans call for bombings using trucks and cars, and hijacked aircraft, including commercial airliners and helicopters.

"There is a particular concern that chemical trucks will be used," one official said.

Regarding the new bin Laden message, the officials said there are intelligence reports, some of them sketchy, that a new tape from the al Qaeda leader will surface soon.

In the past, video and audio messages by bin Laden or his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, were broadcast days or weeks before an attack, the officials said.

"The message likely will be the signal for the attack to be launched," one official said.

A second U.S. official said one intelligence agency was aware of unconfirmed reports of a new bin Laden tape.

"There may be such a tape, but it hasn't surfaced and we haven't seen it," this official said.

Bin Laden last released a taped message in April. The CIA said that the audiotape probably was the voice of bin Laden and that the mention of the March 11 Madrid train bombings shows that the tape was current.

That tape offered a "truce" for any European state that pledged to stop attacking Muslims and end cooperation with the United States.

Contrary to what some Democratic critics of the Bush administration have said, intelligence officials said the new details of al Qaeda planning were obtained from the Khan laptop. The terrorist group was in the process of updating older attack plans, the officials said.

On Aug. 2, the Bush administration raised the terrorism threat level from "elevated" to "high" for five finance-related sites in the District, New York and New Jersey, based on the intelligence in Khan's computer, as well as other intelligence.

Frances Townsend, a White House homeland-security adviser, said Sunday that the government has received a steady "stream" of intelligence indicating that an al Qaeda attack is planned.

"What we know now that we didn't know six months ago is that they've done a good deal of planning and surveillance work to accomplish that goal," she said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
     
CreepingDeth  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 02:39 AM
 
You're insane. Why would they disrupt it to get Bush in office. He ATTACKS them. He would have rather had his spot in Afghanistan than to be thrown out of there. He will always find recruits. This isn't like suicide bombings. The people have a longer shelf life.

Kerry's a whimp, and he knows that. Kerry would go to the UN for help. IF anything happens, it will be that there will be a surge in patriotism and respect for the country, and they will be united behind Bush. But he hopes that We're going to be another Spain, and that we will cave in. We will never.
     
MindFad
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 02:43 AM
 
Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
You're insane. Why would they disrupt it to get Bush in office. He ATTACKS them. He would have rather had his spot in Afghanistan than to be thrown out of there. He will always find recruits.


With Bush as the largest recruiter, you're not kidding.

Kerry's a whimp, and he knows that. Kerry would go to the UN for help. IF anything happens, it will be that there will be a surge in patriotism and respect for the country, and they will be united behind Bush. But he hopes that We're going to be another Spain, and that we will cave in. We will never.
Source? (lol)
     
dialo
Senior User
Join Date: May 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 02:48 AM
 
Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
You're insane. Why would they disrupt it to get Bush in office. He ATTACKS them.
Really? Last I checked, the vast majority of our resources and attention were in Iraq, terrorist groups (and Iraqi insurgent groups) were very active and growing like crazy and afghanistan was back to having a factional, decentralized government run by warlords who really only care about wealth and holding onto power (in other words, they can and are bought by anyone with enough cash).

Bush "attacks them." At least I have to go on the internet to actually find people willing to make such ridiculous statements. Hell, if you even paid a cent of attention to the work, statements, papers, articles and dissertations of the current policy makers in this administration you'd realize that they are obsessed with attacking states and still don't believe that al-qaeda is a true transnational political entity.
     
CreepingDeth  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 02:48 AM
 
Are you thick? The people want us all dead. They don't need anyone to recruit. They are already fueled by indoctrinated hate, and they'd contact the bastards with or without Bush. You suggest that we should stop hunting, because we're making it worse. ********.
RAID doesn't make ants come back.

They want Kerry because he's more likely not to engage in anything preemptive, or anything as severe as Bush would attempt.
     
dialo
Senior User
Join Date: May 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 02:54 AM
 
Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
... or anything as severe as Bush would attempt.
Such as what? Attacking countries that have nothing to do with them, thereby also thinning available resources? Yeah, I'm sure al-qaeda groups are real scared of that.
     
BlackGriffen
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 02:57 AM
 
Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
You're insane. Why would they disrupt it to get Bush in office. He ATTACKS them. He would have rather had his spot in Afghanistan than to be thrown out of there. He will always find recruits. This isn't like suicide bombings. The people have a longer shelf life.
His attacks, no matter how careful the military is, also hurt civilians and receive bad air play throughout the Islamic world. These victims, bystanders, and those sympathetic to them, are the ones that swell Al Qaeda's ranks. Al Qaeda is an organization that defines itself as the resistance to an enemy. Without an arch-rival, Al Qaeda cannot exist. You can see it in their history. Initially, Al Qaeda defined itself as the resistance to the Russians in Afghanistan. When they lost that enemy, they moved on to Saudi Arabia, briefly, and quickly to the U.S.

Have you ever played with cornstarch? Fun stuff. Try slowly adding water to a small pile you hold in your hand until a really thick goop is formed. Then, try exerting pressure on it. You find that it solidifies. Remove the pressure, and it becomes a liquid again, flowing like any other liquid. It's counter intuitive, but so is the current international situation.

Kerry's a whimp, and he knows that. Kerry would go to the UN for help. IF anything happens, it will be that there will be a surge in patriotism and respect for the country, and they will be united behind Bush. But he hopes that We're going to be another Spain, and that we will cave in. We will never.
Precisely. And only an idiot wouldn't realize it. To quote Bush, "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful." In other words, not the types to not realize it.
     
CreepingDeth  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 02:59 AM
 
How do you go about attacking terrorists if attacking makes more? Does you give them a time out?
It doesn't make sense. They are driven my inhuman anger, not Bush's agenda.

Come on, what makes you think al Qaeda is in desperate enough condition to kill a leader to get Bush reelected so they can get more people?
They hate capitalism. They hate Americans. They hate "infidels". They hate us, and will continue to until they're given a lethal dose of death.
     
BlackGriffen
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 03:18 AM
 
Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
How do you go about attacking terrorists if attacking makes more?
It's like playing whack-a-mole where you only want to get specific moles without hitting the others. In short, you need to use surgical and precise means against a small enemy. On the military side, you want to stick with special forces. When you want to take out one or a dozen motherfcukers without excessive risk of "collateral damage" accept no substitute.

Law enforcement is also a critical surgical tool. It's very handy for getting the job done in densely populated areas where you don't want a firefight, and is the only acceptable means in a lot of places (like the U.S. and Europe).

Most important though is to develop reliable intelligence. High tech eavesdropping may get all the glamor these days, but there is no substitute for an agent, double agent, informer, or other mole in the enemy's ranks. This is the most difficult and most critical task, because even the aforementioned "tools" can increase terrorist recruitment if they're not "pointed in the right direction." This is why I was incensed over the administration outing that Pakistani guy who was serving as a double agent, admittedly from prison. How much more than even the info you used to post this thread could we have gotten if his cover weren't blown for political reasons? Sadly, we'll never know now. It is of paramount importance, though, that we get more sources of information like him. Without them, we're fighting blind, and fighting blind is the best way to hit a bystander, making an enemy.

BlackGriffen
     
CreepingDeth  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 03:21 AM
 
Except when they're being harbored by other countries. That brings us to he big stuff.

I can't believe we still have double agents after Carter's and Clinton's destruction of the CIA.

Last post tonight.
     
dialo
Senior User
Join Date: May 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 03:40 AM
 
Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
I can't believe we still have double agents after Carter's and Clinton's destruction of the CIA.
The CIA's problems have to do with the fall of the soviet union, the uneasy transition to a distributed model, the inability to efficiently adapt to changes in technology (and subsequent sluggish recognition of osint as the most important discipline) and an obviously inefficient knowledge management system(s).
     
RAILhead
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 07:27 AM
 
Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
How do you go about attacking terrorists if attacking makes more?
Napalm. Carpet bombing. A couple thousand MOABs.





Couldn't resist, sorry.

Maury
"Everything's so clear to me now: I'm the keeper of the cheese and you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.
That's why he's gonna kill us. So we got to beat it. Yeah. Before he let's loose the marmosets on us."
my bandmy web sitemy guitar effectsmy photosfacebookbrightpoint
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 01:10 PM
 
Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Are you thick? The people want us all dead. They don't need anyone to recruit. They are already fueled by indoctrinated hate, and they'd contact the bastards with or without Bush.
You're correct, but you've got to admit that Bush does make their brainwashing job a lot easier. I doubt this is something Bush means to do, but it happens that he's an easy person to hate.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 03:10 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
You're correct, but you've got to admit that Bush does make their brainwashing job a lot easier. I doubt this is something Bush means to do, but it happens that he's an easy person to hate.
Regardless of who is prez, they're going to hate us, and find whatever reason for it. Bottomline is we're going to have to hunt them down and eliminate them, regardless if it's Bush or Kerry or whoever else.

When one sees a cockroach in the kitchen, you spray it and kill it. If you see 10 more next week, you spray those and kill it too. It doesn't matter how many bad guys are out there, we'll kill 'em all. If somebody wishes to join the side of the enemy, that's their perrogative.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 03:45 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
When one sees a cockroach in the kitchen, you spray it and kill it. If you see 10 more next week, you spray those and kill it too. It doesn't matter how many bad guys are out there, we'll kill 'em all. If somebody wishes to join the side of the enemy, that's their perrogative.
Yes, but do you kill the residents of the house in your attempt to kill the roaches? If someone is attacking roaches in your house, without your permission, and they are using methods that threaten your safety, are you going to support the roach attacker who is threatening your life or are you going to perhaps feel a little threatened by him? And if the roaches have been saying all along that the roach attacher has something against you, isn't this just going to prove the roach's point? And if the roaches suggest you join their ranks to help stand up against the roach attacker who is threatening your life, what are you going to do? Sit back and do nothing, or stand and fight the roach attacker who is threatening your life?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 04:17 PM
 
Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
How do you go about attacking terrorists if attacking makes more? Does you give them a time out?
You attack the source of the problem. Terrorists are a result, not a cause. Yes, the organizing terrorist and his core followers might have an irrational hatred for the US, but the vast majority of his followers and supporters likely don't, but have been convinced by the leader that the US somehow poses a threat to their lives. You must attack that argument. You must prove that the US is not a threat to their lives. Invading Arab nations without provocation and having large civilian casualties doesn't help matters.
     
angaq0k
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 04:31 PM
 
Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
It's like playing whack-a-mole where you only want to get specific moles without hitting the others. In short, you need to use surgical and precise means against a small enemy. On the military side, you want to stick with special forces. When you want to take out one or a dozen motherfcukers without excessive risk of "collateral damage" accept no substitute.

Law enforcement is also a critical surgical tool. It's very handy for getting the job done in densely populated areas where you don't want a firefight, and is the only acceptable means in a lot of places (like the U.S. and Europe).

Most important though is to develop reliable intelligence. High tech eavesdropping may get all the glamor these days, but there is no substitute for an agent, double agent, informer, or other mole in the enemy's ranks. This is the most difficult and most critical task, because even the aforementioned "tools" can increase terrorist recruitment if they're not "pointed in the right direction." This is why I was incensed over the administration outing that Pakistani guy who was serving as a double agent, admittedly from prison. How much more than even the info you used to post this thread could we have gotten if his cover weren't blown for political reasons? Sadly, we'll never know now. It is of paramount importance, though, that we get more sources of information like him. Without them, we're fighting blind, and fighting blind is the best way to hit a bystander, making an enemy.

BlackGriffen
Having a different foreign policy would not hurt either...
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 04:32 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
...When one sees a cockroach in the kitchen, you spray it and kill it. If you see 10 more next week, you spray those and kill it too. It doesn't matter how many bad guys are out there, we'll kill 'em all. If somebody wishes to join the side of the enemy, that's their perrogative.
And to introduce your president's foreign policy into the analogy:

When you see a dead cockroach in the kitchen, you demolish the rest of your house for 'harbouring roaches', and then destroy the neighbouring houses for helping to support roaches, and it turns out that you still have roaches, and roaches that are immune to spray. But no house, and no neighbours.

Great plan.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
angaq0k
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 04:32 PM
 
Originally posted by christ:
And to introduce your president's foreign policy into the analogy:

When you see a dead cockroach in the kitchen, you demolish the rest of your house for 'harbouring roaches', and then destroy the neighbouring houses for helping to support roaches, and it turns out that you still have roaches, and roaches that are immune to spray. But no house, and no neighbours.

Great plan.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
angaq0k
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 04:45 PM
 
Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
How do you go about attacking terrorists if attacking makes more? Does you give them a time out?
It doesn't make sense. They are driven my inhuman anger, not Bush's agenda.

Come on, what makes you think al Qaeda is in desperate enough condition to kill a leader to get Bush reelected so they can get more people?
They hate capitalism. They hate Americans. They hate "infidels". They hate us, and will continue to until they're given a lethal dose of death.
I think they hate what is being done to them, and American foreign policy is no stranger to that, as the main carrier of values reflected by insensitive capitalism (which is applied by most industrial countries but to a lesser extent, i.e. France, Germany, U.K. etc.).

As long as the American people will be perceived as supporting governments that have imperialist views throughout the world (the so-called American interests), you will see resistance at various levels. This goes beyond freedom fighters, as that group is only a subscript of a set of movements of oppositions that are mostly attempts to reclaim nationalism by applying a form of social identity from the population level. Then all you need is one form of leadership or another (revolution. terrorism, religious right, etc) to express or carry the need for these populations for a change (defense of national interests against alien invasion through corporate bodies). Unfortunately, some of these groups are guided by the true ennemy of humanity; totalitarianism (although it does have a function in peculiar cases; i.e. China).

Destroy Al-Qaeda, and others will come. It is not a question of if, but a question of when it will happen.

It is a natural Law: the fight against standardization of thoughts. There will always be revolutionaries. Better let them be in their little kingdom than attempt to convert them all and oppress everyone at the same time.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 04:53 PM
 
Originally posted by christ:
... it turns out that you still have roaches, and roaches that are immune to spray ...
Not only immune to spray, but actually feed off it.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 05:20 PM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
You attack the source of the problem.
How? You can't attack psychosis. You're still making the mistake of believing that terrorists are sane people. Nothing else matters.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
angaq0k
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 05:24 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
How? You can't attack psychosis. You're still making the mistake of believing that terrorists are sane people. Nothing else matters.
And you still make the mistake of thinking you are a psychiatrist to make such a diagnosis.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 06:24 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
How? You can't attack psychosis. You're still making the mistake of believing that terrorists are sane people. Nothing else matters.
I'm not talking about terrorists. But, many of their supporters are likely sane people who hear the arguments put forth by people like Bin Laden and see those arguments validated through the actions of people like George Bush. American foreign policy then exacerbates the issue.

Fighting terrorism by invading Arab countries without provocation only adds fuel to the flames started by Bin Laden. The US needs take actions that prove to the Arab world that it doesn't have an anti-Arab foreign policy.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 06:37 PM
 
You don't fight terrorism by appeasing terrorist. It doesn't matter WHAT we do or don't do. We and anyone else that doesn't cohere to their extremist view of Islam is considered an infidel that needs to convert or gotten rid of. You simply cannot come to terms with these groups unless you do that. And since that isn't going to happen..
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 06:41 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
How?
Good question.

Hard too.

But because it is a hard question doesn't mean that you should answer a different, easier, question and expect the answer to that question to solve the original problem.

A war on terror is a very hard thing to wage, a war on Iraq is (relatively) easy. That doesn't mean that a war on Iraq heps to prosecute a war on terror, and it may well hinder it.

Trying to answer your question would be a much better thing to do. And in this, as in nearly all things, thinking should be done before acting, rather than after.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 06:42 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
... It doesn't matter WHAT we do or don't do...
Oh yes it does.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 07:02 PM
 
Originally posted by christ:
Oh yes it does.
You are right. If we don't make our government follow Islamic law, we are doomed.
     
angaq0k
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 07:10 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
You are right. If we don't make our government follow Islamic law, we are doomed.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 07:25 PM
 
http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html

The terror attack of 9-11 was not designed to make us alter our policy, but was crafted for its effect on the terrorists themselves: It was a spectacular piece of theater. The targets were chosen by al Qaeda not through military calculation � in contrast, for example, to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor � but entirely because they stood as symbols of American power universally recognized by the Arab street. They were gigantic props in a grandiose spectacle in which the collective fantasy of radical Islam was brought vividly to life: A mere handful of Muslims, men whose will was absolutely pure, as proven by their martyrdom, brought down the haughty towers erected by the Great Satan. What better proof could there possibly be that God was on the side of radical Islam and that the end of the reign of the Great Satan was at hand?
( Last edited by Zimphire; Aug 11, 2004 at 07:32 PM. )
     
angaq0k
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 07:57 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html

The terror attack of 9-11 was not designed to make us alter our policy, but was crafted for its effect on the terrorists themselves: It was a spectacular piece of theater. The targets were chosen by al Qaeda not through military calculation � in contrast, for example, to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor � but entirely because they stood as symbols of American power universally recognized by the Arab street. They were gigantic props in a grandiose spectacle in which the collective fantasy of radical Islam was brought vividly to life: A mere handful of Muslims, men whose will was absolutely pure, as proven by their martyrdom, brought down the haughty towers erected by the Great Satan. What better proof could there possibly be that God was on the side of radical Islam and that the end of the reign of the Great Satan was at hand?
LOL
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 08:06 PM
 
Allah/God/whoever is not on the side of the primitive alqaeda, and they will lose bigtime.

Also, anybody suggesting appeasing those kind, should have their motives and allegiance questioned.
     
angaq0k
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 08:10 PM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
Allah/God/whoever is not on the side of the primitive alqaeda, and they will lose bigtime.

Also, anybody suggesting appeasing those kind, should have their motives and allegiance questioned.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 09:28 PM
 
Originally posted by angaq0k:
Fixinated,

I really didn't think you'd have anything to add. I was right.
     
BlackGriffen
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 09:48 PM
 
I have a somewhat funny story related to this. I landed a job as a substitute teacher, and had to attend a training class. The even sold us a manual (not optional). The funny part was that as they were teaching us classroom management techniques, my mind kept going to the current situation under discussion here. I think I'll just post excerpts here. The manual is called Substitute Teacher Handbook published by the Substitute Teaching Institute of Utah State University for Granite School District.
[p. 7] Remember The behavior you are trying to control is your own.

[p. 16 ff] While most student behavior is inconsequential, there are inappropriate student behaviors that are of consequence and need to be addressed. Such behaviors include those in which a student persists in disruptive behavior and is increasingly destroying the learning environment, or when students are physically or verbally abusive to one another. Coercion is a common inappropriate response to such behavior.

Coercion involves interactions with students that attempt to achieve compliance through the use of threats or force. The intent is to compel students to behave out of rear of what will happen to them if they do not. Coercion makes a student want to escape or avoid their coercer, it does nothing to address the problem. At best, it instill a sense of fear in student that prevents them from acting out. While on the surface the problem seems to have gone away, in reality you have threatened the student's self-confidence and destroyed the atmosphere of risk-free student response opportunities you are trying to create.
[...]
Though this process [omitted] may seem cumbersome and complicated, it actually takes less than two minutes and becomes quite natural when practiced consistently. At this point, you might be thinking, "Well that's all right for young students, but not for the kids I work with." It may interest you to know that this strategy was developed at Boy's Town in Omaha, Nebraska, and is used daily with boys and girls of all ages, all the way through high school. This strategy demonstrate the best that research has to offer for stopping inappropriate behavior.

[p. 18 ff] Other Noncoercive Strategies
[...]
Reevaluate the Situation
[summary: try to find out why, if possible, because behavior may have legitimate motivations]
Reinforce Appropriate Behavior
[summary: visibly reward those who aren't acting up - it's an interesting way of offering a carrot without bribing]
proximity
[summary: gradually putting oneself physically closer to misbehaving students is often sufficient]
Restate Expectations
[summary: make sure that the students know what is expected of them by restating executions and concomitant consequences (syn. rewards here) and having a student spit them back at you]
State the facts
[summary: basically, explain why a rule is what it is]
Acknowledge and Restate/I Understand
[summary: basically, if they complain you say, "I understand that ..., but ..." restating expectations]
Consequences
[...]
  • When possible, consequences should be a natural outcome or directly related to the behavior. For example, if a student is off-task and does not finish his/her assignment, the consequence could be that s/he is required to work on the task while the rest of the class participates in a fun activity.
  • Consequences and their implementation should not provide undue attention to misbehaving students.
  • What is a negative consequence to one student may be a reinforcing consequence to another. If the consequence does not change the behavior in time, change the consequence.
  • Consequences should be administered quickly and quietly without getting emotionally involved.
  • All consequences should be reasonable, appropriate, and in accordance with district or school guidelines and policies.
Consequences should always be made known to students before they are administered. In other words, consequences should not be sprung on students out of nowhere after the behavior has already taken place. Students need to know in advance what they can expect as a result of their behavior, both positive and negative, so they can make informed choices about how to behave. Consequences should be communicated to students as predetermined outcomes of behavior rather than threats. It is a good idea to discuss consequences in conjunction with explaining expectations for the classroom or particular activity.
[...]
Correct Individuals
When necessary, you should correct individuals and implement consequences at the individual student level rather than punishing the whole group. Punishing the entire class for the misbehavior of one student usually results in two negative outcomes. First, the student receives a lot of attention as s/he is singled out and recognized as the cause for the class consequences. Second, any trust you had established with the remaining students is lost due to your unfair actions. By correcting and applying consequences to an individual, that student receives direction and is not over recognized for his/her negative behavior.
[...]
I know that a good deal of that is completely irrelevant (eg the "proximity" suggestion), but I left it in for completeness. If you read it with an open mind, however, you'll find that the suggestions here have incredibly broad applicability - from raising your own kids to managing foreign policy.

You'll note that I tried to embody these principles in the methods I suggested for managing the situation. the only thing the manual leaves out is behavior with an unknown culprit, which is why I stressed intel, especially human, so heavily.

BlackGriffen
     
angaq0k
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 09:54 PM
 
Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I have a somewhat funny story related to this. I landed a job as a substitute teacher, and had to attend a training class. The even sold us a manual (not optional). The funny part was that as they were teaching us classroom management techniques, my mind kept going to the current situation under discussion here. I think I'll just post excerpts here. The manual is called Substitute Teacher Handbook published by the Substitute Teaching Institute of Utah State University for Granite School District.

I know that a good deal of that is completely irrelevant (eg the "proximity" suggestion), but I left it in for completeness. If you read it with an open mind, however, you'll find that the suggestions here have incredibly broad applicability - from raising your own kids to managing foreign policy.

You'll note that I tried to embody these principles in the methods I suggested for managing the situation. the only thing the manual leaves out is behavior with an unknown culprit, which is why I stressed intel, especially human, so heavily.

BlackGriffen
Great post BlackGriffin!

"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
angaq0k
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 10:11 PM
 
Originally posted by angaq0k:
LOL
Let me rephrase that.

How is this:

You are right. If we don't make our government follow Islamic law, we are doomed.
Related to this:

The terror attack of 9-11 was not designed to make us alter our policy, but was crafted for its effect on the terrorists themselves: It was a spectacular piece of theater. The targets were chosen by al Qaeda not through military calculation � in contrast, for example, to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor � but entirely because they stood as symbols of American power universally recognized by the Arab street. They were gigantic props in a grandiose spectacle in which the collective fantasy of radical Islam was brought vividly to life: A mere handful of Muslims, men whose will was absolutely pure, as proven by their martyrdom, brought down the haughty towers erected by the Great Satan. What better proof could there possibly be that God was on the side of radical Islam and that the end of the reign of the Great Satan was at hand?
I don't see the link here.

The quote from policy review, although very interpretative, makes a lot of sense.

But your assertion that the U.S. government should turn into an Islamic government because of that interpretation makes no sense. I think you forgot a lot of steps in making that relationship.

So please, be my guest, and do that.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 10:12 PM
 
That would work in most cases.. but this isn't most cases.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 10:45 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
You don't fight terrorism by appeasing terrorist.
I don't believe I suggested or implied appeasement. That's you projecting what you want to believe I'm suggesting. All I'm saying is that attacking bin Laden and Saddam only attack the result and do nothing about the cause. It's like trying to kill a weed by pulling off it's leaves and ignoring the roots.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 10:49 PM
 
The cause is extreme islam teaching them they must get rid of the infidels. I wonder how you fix that.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 10:56 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
The cause is extreme islam teaching them they must get rid of the infidels. I wonder how you fix that.
Prove your assertion please, or is it just something you want to believe?
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 11:08 PM
 
They have said it themselves!

Have you never read any of their rants?

They think Allah wants them to conquer and spread Islam to go against the infidels.

And America is the GREAT SATAN!

I they will do it by sword if need be.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 11:25 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
They have said it themselves!

Have you never read any of their rants?

They think Allah wants them to conquer and spread Islam to go against the infidels.
Those people aren't anymore Muslim than a serial murderer who claims to be on a mission from the Christian god.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 11:33 PM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Those people aren't anymore Muslim than a serial murderer who claims to be on a mission from the Christian god.
Of course they aren't.

That is why I have been saying "extreme version of Islam"

These people are wackos. And they attract other wackos.

These are also the ones that have been terrorizing the world lately,
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2004, 11:38 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Of course they aren't.

That is why I have been saying "extreme version of Islam"
But they aren't even an "extreme" version of Islam. They aren't Islam at all. Would you say that the Christian serial murderer follows an "extreme" version of Christianity?
     
BlackGriffen
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2004, 01:51 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
They have said it themselves!
And tell me, why do you credit the words of a liar who wants to start a religious war? Bin Laden is a nutjob, no doubt about it in my mind. Many of his closest lieutenants probably fit the bill, too. They're not important, though. It's the motive of the rank and file members that wee need to worry about, because they're the ones that actually pull off the attacks.

Take away bin Laden's ability to recruit, and he'll be able to pull off one attack at worst. Continue to feed the madman with desperate and vengeful souls, and the flames of war will not cease burning in our lifetime, or the lifetime of our children's children.

BlackGriffen
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum 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
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:38 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,