Dick Durbin

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Mule

So there's no suche thing as al queda? Yeah, thats the ticket. There was no such thing as naxism either. Let me repeat. Put down the torch & step away from the crack pipe.

It seems like you know all the inside scoop on what's going on down there. Maybe we should put you in charge of gitmo. Or MAYBE ----------- you're one of them al queda sympathizers hmmmmm? Is your real name bin weenie?

There are these things called "books." And in them, you can sometimes find information that doesn't get to you through your crack pipe or Limbaugh.

------------------
Terror Vision

Al Quaeda
Jason Burke

Ben Granger

The most striking fact Jason Burke hammers through time and again in this meticulous and comprehensive study is that "Al Quaeda" does not exist. Or at least, "Al Quaeda" the organised terrorist group, cohesive and complete we hear of in the media doesn't. I like Spooks as much as anyone, but I fear we have been misinformed.
What does exist is a series of interconnected yet disparate and competing forms of militant Islamism. Bin Laden's faction, amorphous in itself and rarely termed "Al Quaeda" by its followers is only one part of this, yet it has become lazy shorthand for a massive phenomenon. Burke does not claim Islamist fundamentalism isn't a large, violent and dangerous force, but does show that this one key misunderstanding is disastrous if you want to deal with it. For one example, the twin towers atrocity could be said to be the work of "Al Quaeda"; the ones in Madrid and Bali cannot. And as another, al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian thug currently given to beheading aid-workers in Iraq has been described as an "Al Queda operative" and "bin Laden's Lieutenant" in highly reputable papers despite the two having never met, and their groups being bitter rivals of one another.

Burke, who has spent the last ten years as The Observer's Middle East correspondent, tells two separate yet interlinked stories; that of the formation of militant political Islamism, and that of the more specific violent groupings of which bin Laden became a leading figure. He traces the roots of modern political Sunni "Islamism" (as opposed to the Shia extremism of Khomeini) as comparatively recent, stemming from Wahaabism, a variant of Islam espoused in the eighteenth century by the ultra-orthodox renegade Abdul al Wahaab. This was developed into an all-encompassing political doctrine by an Egyptian, the Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan Al-Banna in the 1920s and 30s. Explicitly rejecting all Western influence as degenerate, Al-Banna and his successor Syed Qutb, (another Egyptian campaigning in the 50s and 60s) sought to recreate the world according to the laws of Islam in the early post-Mohammed years as they interpreted it, an interpretation very obscure and unpopular at the time in the wider Islamic world (though, crucially, not in Saudi Arabia, where it gained credence amongst the ruling royal family who used it to re-inforce their legitimacy.)

-------------------
Read the full review at http://www.spikemagazine.com/0205alquaeda.php

Or don't.

[gaijindabe]

Originally posted by techweenie
........and that of the more specific violent groupings of which bin Laden became a leading figure.......

So which members or financial supporters of these "violent groupings", by any name or names they may or may not go under should not be hunted down, pumped for as much information as possible and then either held or eliminated???

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by rcecale
Didja think about sleeper cells before you posted this?

Randy

Randy, I didn't, what do you mean?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Mule, not speaking for any of my liberal brethren, but I believe a lot of what we're tired of is the Right's big hammer approach to Everything.

You wouldn't adjust your valves with a ball peen hammer, would you? it's just simplistic, "if you aren't with us, you're against us" "wanted dead or alive" made for TV crap that plays well at the moment but is totally ineffective in the long run. Bin laden who?

Taking Durbin's speech in context, I don't see your problem with it. Either we are using some of the same methods of interrogation at Gitmo the Nazi's and Stalin or we aren't.

the Pentagon seems to confirm that we are. It's pretty simple really. Your beef is with Rumsfeld, not the Left.

And it all boils down to becoming what we hate! Quite simply, our enemies use these same tactics. Either we stand for something greater than they, or we reduce ourselves to their level.

I know your argument against this logic and I feel that it's weak and indefensible in the face of The Constitution. Honestly, the Right is doing more to tarnish our nation and all that it stands for than any terrorist ever could.

Just one view from the Left.

[stomachmonkey]

Shaun, keep logic out of this.

It has no place in this discussion.

[stomachmonkey]

damn!

I wasted post 911 on something stupid and now I just realized I did the same with post 935.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

I'd like to hypothesize that an organized Al Queda as it's been described by the media does not really exist.

I have no positive evidence, simply negative reinforcement.

We all know our borders are as open as the fields of Kansas.

We know that maybe 5% of cargo in our ports is screened, the rest is allowed entry with no screening.

We know that you can jump on an Amtrak in Boston and arrive in Penn Station under Manhattan 2 hours later with absolutely no screening of you or your baggage.

We all know that 20 or less men is all it takes to do extraordinary damage to anything.

In fact we know that 2 men, McVeigh and Nichols, can nearly duplicate Al Quaeda in terms of pure mechanical devastation.

We know it's pretty easy to build bombs.

We know it's really easy to get virtually any gun you ever wanted. there was a story here in Boston recently and any 10-year-old in Roxbury can directly get a gun... 1 degree of separation.

Given all of this, why haven't we been attacked?

Conventional Right Wing rhetoric says that they are too busy fighting us "over there." I'd be OK with this argument if Al Quaeda were a conventional army, but even that logic falls flat: conventional armies also have intelligence and infiltration departments.

In effect you are saying that Al Quaeda, a worldwide network of loosely organized yet highly connected cells, can't spare 10 guys or so to attack the US, their most hated enemies.

All this talk about giving comfort to our enemy is really hokey and truly rings of Western arrogance and the supposition that their daily experience mirrors yours. Newsflash: it doesn't. There's only one thing we can say in the US that empowers our enemies:

We're leaving Irag on June 23, 2006.

Everything else is just media/rhetoric hype. If you aren't with us, you're against us. Wanted: dead or alive. and so on.

[widebody911]

Well-stated, Shaun.

So, why do you hate American so much?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by widebody911
Well-stated, Shaun.

So, why do you hate American so much?

Thom, you caught me. Pure and simple: I hate freedom. I hate it so much that I'm using all my available vitriol against the 4th or 5th most free country in the world, the United States of America.

Damn you American's for being free for the most part, damn you all to hell!!

[skipdup]

Shaun- From one very right conservative... I may be wrong... but you're not currently on my "hates America" list. Did I miss some of your posts?

- Skip

[M.D. Holloway]

Shaun - it's because we have such crack intel that they have not been able to even sneeze without us kick'n some tail.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Skip, a bit of sarcasm, seems Michael is getting in on it too.

[skipdup]

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
Skip, a bit of sarcasm, seems Michael is getting in on it too.

Shaun- I know. Mine was supposed to be funny... but I'm tired. And, maybe just not very funny.

- Skip

[rrpjr]

I would posit several reasons we haven't been attacked (though your "negative reinforcement" argument may also support the idea of a current, active conspiracy to attack us in the future. That is, why haven't they attacked us since 9/11? Because they are planning an attack. 9/11 took several years to plan, after all. But obviously I am a Strangelovian paranoic. I mean, 9/11 never really happened.

Of course to restate the obvious, your hypothesis glibly ignores September 11th, which provided all the proof reasonably observant people should ever need of al Qaeda's capacity to execute a difficult and deadly attack.

A kid in Roxbury getting a gun is not the same as a terrorist acquiring the components of a bomb. The comparison makes good copy, but the two processes aren't the same. Hardly a degree of separation.

Most terrorists are Muslims. It is that much more challenging today to organize a conspiracy of two dozen Muslims in America. You might be surprised by how many Americans – not simply law enforcement people -- are paying attention to such things.

I would not characterize al Qaeda as a “network of loosely organized yet highly connected cells.” Rather, I see them as an organizationally chaotic, loosely connected confederation of zealots maniacally united by fundamentalist hate. They have no use for the corporate structure of an IBM – they need only a large pool of willing trigger men anywhere in the world, a smaller braintrust of planners, and small deployments of strategic teams which can in themselves be highly focused toward a specific goal of death and mayhem.

I would also submit that al Qaeda has a long-term view. I don’t think they see themselves as pesky anarchists, Molotov cocktail tossers or even IRA car bombers. They have grand, messianic visions, of apocalypse and destruction and suzerainty. My guess -- of which, like you, I have no proof -- is that they do not wish to mess with fertilizer bombs or even bombs on airplanes anymore. These would only serve to stir up our country’s defenses and spirit as 9/11 did. I think they are looking at and planning something far more grave. They want a nuclear weapon. They want a contagious pathogen. I believe they want their next attack to kill tens if not hundreds of thousands and to cripple our psyche and/or our economy.

Al Qaeda and the like have no interest in making accommodations with the West. Their goal is far more than our removal from the Middle East. Our unilateral withdrawal tomorrow, our disavowal of Israel tomorrow, even our gift to them of several US states, would do nothing to placate them. They are implacable. They wish to annihilate us. They don’t want to live with us; they insist on living without us. They are a clear and present danger not merely to us, but to civilization. Anybody who misses this basic truth cannot, in my view, be taken seriously in this debate.

I have this argument a lot with friends and family in Berkeley. They hold the same dismissive view of al Qaeda – it is all boogeyman stuff concocted by the Right. A serious study of the reactions of Manhattan liberals to the September 11 attack either has not been made or not made public, but I believe one would be most interesting. It was my understanding that there was a major cognitive meltdown among the children of the liberal elite in New York after 9/11. These young people simply had no way to absorb the reality of such an attack. I wonder how they are doing now, what they are thinking, what their parents are telling them.

Of course, the next time we are attacked, and there will be a next time, I don’t expect nearly the same level of national unity and solemnity. I expect that within 24 hours of an attack it will be declared by the left to be Bush’s fault – whether he is still in office, or whether Hilllary Clinton is in yet. We shall see, I suppose, and in the process see what the West is truly made of.

[M.D. Holloway]

Its pretty scary. Everytime I get on a plane I think of the various ways the bird could come down. It isn't that hard to do.

I get the chance to work in many plants (Water, Food, Petro-chemical, Refineries, ect...) and am totally surprised each time of how simple it would be to really ***** things up. I sometimes want to make mention to them but fear that they would consider my caution as an indication of intent.

I don't do well with strip searches unless my wife is doing it...

[Scott '96 993c2]

Dick Durbin needs to be tazed.

Scott

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by rrpjr
I would posit several reasons we haven't been attacked (though your "negative reinforcement" argument may also support the idea of a current, active conspiracy to attack us in the future. That is, why haven't they attacked us since 9/11? Because they are planning an attack. 9/11 took several years to plan, after all. But obviously I am a Strangelovian paranoic. I mean, 9/11 never really happened.

Of course to restate the obvious, your hypothesis glibly ignores September 11th, which provided all the proof reasonably observant people should ever need of al Qaeda's capacity to execute a difficult and deadly attack.

A kid in Roxbury getting a gun is not the same as a terrorist acquiring the components of a bomb. The comparison makes good copy, but the two processes aren't the same. Hardly a degree of separation.

Most terrorists are Muslims. It is that much more challenging today to organize a conspiracy of two dozen Muslims in America. You might be surprised by how many Americans – not simply law enforcement people -- are paying attention to such things.

I would not characterize al Qaeda as a “network of loosely organized yet highly connected cells.” Rather, I see them as an organizationally chaotic, loosely connected confederation of zealots maniacally united by fundamentalist hate. They have no use for the corporate structure of an IBM – they need only a large pool of willing trigger men anywhere in the world, a smaller braintrust of planners, and small deployments of strategic teams which can in themselves be highly focused toward a specific goal of death and mayhem.

I would also submit that al Qaeda has a long-term view. I don’t think they see themselves as pesky anarchists, Molotov cocktail tossers or even IRA car bombers. They have grand, messianic visions, of apocalypse and destruction and suzerainty. My guess -- of which, like you, I have no proof -- is that they do not wish to mess with fertilizer bombs or even bombs on airplanes anymore. These would only serve to stir up our country’s defenses and spirit as 9/11 did. I think they are looking at and planning something far more grave. They want a nuclear weapon. They want a contagious pathogen. I believe they want their next attack to kill tens if not hundreds of thousands and to cripple our psyche and/or our economy.

Al Qaeda and the like have no interest in making accommodations with the West. Their goal is far more than our removal from the Middle East. Our unilateral withdrawal tomorrow, our disavowal of Israel tomorrow, even our gift to them of several US states, would do nothing to placate them. They are implacable. They wish to annihilate us. They don’t want to live with us; they insist on living without us. They are a clear and present danger not merely to us, but to civilization. Anybody who misses this basic truth cannot, in my view, be taken seriously in this debate.

I have this argument a lot with friends and family in Berkeley. They hold the same dismissive view of al Qaeda – it is all boogeyman stuff concocted by the Right. A serious study of the reactions of Manhattan liberals to the September 11 attack either has not been made or not made public, but I believe one would be most interesting. It was my understanding that there was a major cognitive meltdown among the children of the liberal elite in New York after 9/11. These young people simply had no way to absorb the reality of such an attack. I wonder how they are doing now, what they are thinking, what their parents are telling them.

Of course, the next time we are attacked, and there will be a next time, I don’t expect nearly the same level of national unity and solemnity. I expect that within 24 hours of an attack it will be declared by the left to be Bush’s fault – whether he is still in office, or whether Hilllary Clinton is in yet. We shall see, I suppose, and in the process see what the West is truly made of.

A lot of text and well-written, refreshing, but the apologist language (strangelovian...) is a bit contrived and only weakens your stance. Let me show where you fall short.

"Of course to restate the obvious, your hypothesis glibly ignores September 11th, which provided all the proof reasonably observant people should ever need of al Qaeda's capacity to execute a difficult and deadly attack. "

First, this makes no sense in the context of a rebuttal to my post. None. In fact I acknowledge what 20 guys can do, or even 2, let alone an organized confederation.

Second, please re-read my text, perhaps a second reading will allow for better comprehension. And PLEASE don't read it the way you WANT to interpret the message occording to your own subjective preconceptions, but rather as an objective text. I purposed used short sentances to help in this regard. Now, on to the guns vs. bombs degree. Guns were an additive arguement, not a comparitive. And getting all the materials necessary to build a bomb similar to OK City is a 1 degree scenario. It's just as easy to get guns as it is to build a bomb. Heck, hijacking a gas/oil/HAZMAT truck is pretty easy and driving it anywhere. Nuff said here, but read on.

Your assertion that terrorists aren't planning an attack in the U.S. because of average citizens on the look-out is weak and hopes the casual reader doesn't remember 2 significant points in my original thesis. Our borders and ports are entirely OPEN. I'll say it again. Anyone can ship anything to this country and/or walk across our 2 borders. Head in the sand thinking won't cure this. Access to any and all bomb-making materials can easily be had in Mexico, just as easily if not more so than here in the U.S. Need I say more?

" These would only serve to stir up our country’s defenses and spirit as 9/11 did. " And you see how much and how fast our government responded. lots of rhetoric, but open borders, poor security at airports, etc. and why would it even matter? If AQ has a long term view (I agree, in fact longer than we do ) then a hit now and again could only strengthen that long-term view. It's sort of like the enemy you can't see, but keeps striking, sooner or later you give up or wear yourself out. Kind of like our military is over-extended now. The rest of your text in that paragraph is pure conjecture.

"They want a nuclear weapon" Hmmm, where will they get one? Hmmm, by overextending ourselves in Iraq and taking our eyes off of North Korea, they now have a ready source. I'm not going to disagree with you on this one, just state that your goofball president just made us a lot less safe through his self-serving and misguided policies. We won't even get into the Chinese being our bankers and building a significant military at the same time.

"Al Qaeda and the like have no interest in making accommodations with the West. Their goal is ..." I'll agree here. And we've done such a good job of breaking the back of AQ. Bin laden who? wanted: dead or alive.

"Of course, the next time we are attacked, and there will be a next time, I don’t expect nearly the same level of national unity and solemnity. I expect that within 24 hours of an attack it will be declared by the left to be Bush’s fault – whether he is still in office, or whether Hilllary Clinton is in yet. "

If Bush is still in office and terrorists were found to have crossed our borders or shipped in a nuclear weapon undetected by our port security, of course it's his fault.

On Hilary, or whoever the next present will be, it all depends on how long they've been in office. Case in point is Bush himself. If 9/11 had happened in 00, it wouldn't have been his fault, it would have been Clinton's. But Bush came into office, got all the memos and briefings, had significant time to understand the growing threat, but instead of focusing on terrorism, he was all about Star Wars and missile defense. The Right constantly says Clinton didn't do enough, blah, blah, blah. I agree, but then it should have been Bush's first and highest priority when he got into office. It wasn't.

Anyway, have a good day, read this a few times to let it soak in. I hope in haste to get down thoughts I haven't mistyped or omitted too manhy words, but it's pretty much all there.

[DonDavis]

It's really quite simple.
From the outside, it appears the Left is imploding. "Turban" Dick Durbin's comments, Dean's rant on Republicans, Ted Kennedy....being himself, j/k is making a LOT of people up in arms across the board. The #1 & 2 Democrats making HARSH accusations and no fellow Democrats saying it was wrong? These occurences are NOT unintentional.

All the while, Hillary is keeping quiet. I've heard interviews of her and she won't comment on those statements. Safely distancing herself but not condemning her colleagues. She is posturing herself to be more moderate and more conservative. In 2 years, she will appear more to the RIGHT than Left while calling herself a Democrat. She will run in '08. And it'll be a more conservative campaign than you can imagine.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by DonDavis
It's really quite simple.
From the outside, it appears the Left is imploding.

Shakira called me this morning; she wants me to defile her on the hood of my GT-2...

Oh, I'm sorry, for a second there I though this was a thread on fantasies...

[Shaun @ Tru6]

I just got back from a wake (friend's mom) and had a very interesting conversation with a gentleman who rose to the rank of Commander in the Coast Guard here in Boston and now consults with the government on security.

I really have to apologize for my previous erroneous statement that 5% of cargo is screened in our ports. I'm not one to make excuses, but that that was the number that's floated by the White House and the Press.

Really, I am sorry for my ignorance. the real #?

3%.


Now this fellow is as Right as you can get (father of a friend) and I've known him for years. When asked how much safer we are than before Sept. 11, he held his thumb and forefinger up with about a millimeter of space in between and said "this much."

George Bush, I salute you for making us 1 millimeter of air safer! good job buddy! and a big thank you for everyone on the Right who helped to get that 1 millimeter. good work!