Okay, so there's the odd dude who's moderately well off who wants to take out some infidels, but if you are positing in any way that that makes up the majority of people who actually carry out terrorist attacks (planning != carrying out), then I call bullshit.
JOYCE: Working at the University of Michigan and the National Center for Scientific Research in France, Atran has collected surveys of failed suicide bombers and of the families of successful bombers. These surveys were done by Pakistani relief workers, as well as Israeli and Western psychologists and economists. They also interviewed members of terror organizations and studied their literature. What the researchers found contradicted the stereotype of the terrorist fanatic.
Mr. ATRAN: These people are fairly well educated, mostly from middle class and not acting at all in despair.
JOYCE: Atran summarizes these findings in today's issue of the journal Science. He notes that the government of Singapore recently published a similar report on Asian terrorists linked to al-Qaeda that found the same trend.
At Princeton University, economist Alan Krueger has studied not only bombers but the views of the Palestinian public on terror attacks aimed at Israelis. Again, surveys found no link between poverty and illiteracy and support for terror.
Mr. ALAN KRUEGER (Princeton University): I think there's very little connection between economic circumstances and support for terrorism or maybe even an opposite relationship, from what most people suspect.
JOYCE: As for the bombers themselves, Krueger says terrorist literature indicates they are more likely to come from the ranks of middle-class college students.
Just as the educated tend to make better workers, they also make "better" terrorists.
...if people have their basic needs met and are generally happy they won't resort to extremist shit like blowing themselves up in the first place.
The extremists have different beliefs, priorities, and concerns. Although they believe they are destined to rule the world, that their way is best and just, that Allah is on their side, only 1/6 the world believe in Islam, the mighty Islamic empire of 1,000 years ago is fallen, the Caliphate was dissolved 90 years ago, and immoral Westerners are rich and powerful. It vexes them, and they intend to put the world right.
How many middle class persons of any country - people two or three times above that country's poverty line - have parked an explosives-laden truck next to a building and blown it up?
The middle class are strongly represented among terrorists and leaders of terrorist organizations. Here are just a few examples, there are many more:
It might be easier if this was all about poverty and social safety nets, but that isn't the case. Increasing numbers of young Muslims born and raised in the West are taking up arms and bombs to kill in the name of what they call Jihad. They are being radicalized in Western Europe.
That is one of the worst citation mangling cases I have seen in a while. Moderated troll for only lifting the parts that support your argument from the linked doc and then attempting to speak with authority. Feeble when the sources are one click away
You are a sad little troll. You aren't part of the Electronic Jihad by any chance? Or maybe simply practicing Taqiyya?
Please read the links. They support my statements, although I wish they didn't. I would prefer that we could live in peace.
Statistical analysis shows that the amount of terrorist incidents is actually quite small, but the governments around the world like to exaggerate how many there actually are, to deprive decent hard working people of their freedom and democracy, and pee a lot of money up a wall in the process.
Your sig is, "Take Nobody's Word For It." Very fitting. You don't know what you are talking about.
The list of terrorist attacks in just 2008 isn't short, and doesn't include the many arrests and foiled plots. Wikipedia notes that it is incomplete.
Remember Mumbai? 166 killed, and 370 or so wounded? Al Qaeda would like to do the same in Europe. Why hasn't it happened? Active security measures and intelligence.
Remember 9/11? Why hasn't that occurred? Al Qaeda hasn't lost interest in using aircraft to attack buildings or stadiums. Active security measures and intelligence.
Terrorist = "someone opposing any government who should be dead"
Calling someone a terrorist is just a lame excuse to place them outside the law.
So your thinking is that no government in their right mind would label the people who do things like ths terrorists?
Two nearly simultaneous car bombs killed at least eight people in the capital Sunday, and officials said the death toll from a giant suicide truck blast that killed at least 115 a day earlier could be much higher. Iraq Truck Bomb Kills At Least 115
How about we just stop killing and otherwise pissing off brown-skinned people?
You don't understand what is actually happening. Read Bin Laden's Letter to America. You will see that the actual demand isn't to be "left alone". Bin Laden's first demand is:
(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
Bin Laden demands that we convert to Islam. He follows that up with demands that we ditch the Constitution, implement Islamic Sharia law, and do away with the separation of church and state. Among other things we would have to start killing homosexuals and adulterers, end the charging of interest on bank loans, put an end to drug use, pornography, and alcohol use, amputating the hands of thieves, and many other things. Dressing "immodestly" could get you whipped, which probably means burkas for women. Men would have to grow their beards out, or face a whipping. Crucifixion may be a required punishment for some crimes. Afghanistan under the Taliban was almost ideal to them. If we do not agree to this we can expect that his minions will continue to try to kill us.
It is not especially significant that Bin Laden issued that demand to the United States, in time every country will have to deal with it. Subduing the United States is just one step along their path, and they understand that it could take 500 years. Many countries have been attacked. Stockholm had a suicide bomber this weekend. (Thankfully it appears that one of the Stockholm terrorist's bombs blew prematurely and he couldn't get about five more planted - otherwise it might have been another Madrid, London 7/7, Bali, or similar bombing.)
In nearly all cases, the jihadi terrorists have a patently self-evident ambition: to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Islamic law, the Shari'a. Or, again to cite the Daily Telegraph, their "real project is the extension of the Islamic territory across the globe, and the establishment of a worldwide 'caliphate' founded on Shari'a law."
Terrorists openly declare this goal. The Islamists who assassinated Anwar el-Sadat in 1981 decorated their holding cages with banners proclaiming the "caliphate or death." A biography of one of the most influential Islamist thinkers of recent times and an influence on Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam declares that his life "revolved around a single goal, namely the establishment of Allah's Rule on earth" and restoring the caliphate.
Bin Laden himself spoke of ensuring that "the pious caliphate will start from Afghanistan." His chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, also dreamed of re-establishing the caliphate, for then, he wrote, "history would make a new turn, God willing, in the opposite direction against the empire of the United States and the world's Jewish government." Another Al-Qaeda leader, Fazlur Rehman Khalil, publishes a magazine that has declared "Due to the blessings of jihad, America's countdown has begun. It will declare defeat soon," to be followed by the creation of a caliphate.
Ignoring them won't make them go away. They have their own goals - nothing we do other than covert to Islam or fight them will dissuade them. Trying to buy them off or deal with them only delays the inevitable. We are in for a long struggle that will be far bloodier for us if we aren't clear about it. Al Qaeda has a f
Well, welcome to the 21 century you can now picket the business from the comfort of your own home.
And be arrested be in the comfort of your own home for "picketing". A distinction between them is that carrying signs and marching tends to be legal as long as yet let people through. DDOS, not so much.
We don't have to wonder, since the SecDef has said that no US soldiers, missions, or security were harmed or jeapordized by the Wikileaks releases.
Not quite. Secretary of Defense Gates said that the release of the stolen classified documents by Wikileaks is "likely to cause significant harm or damage to national security interests of the United States".
Washington (CNN) -- The online leak of thousands of secret military documents from the war in Afghanistan by the website WikiLeaks did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods, the Department of Defense concluded.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said there is still concern Afghans named in the published documents could be retaliated against by the Taliban, though a NATO official said there has been no indication that this has happened. (Re: NATO comment, see below. -CF) " We assess this risk as likely to cause significant harm or damage to national security interests of the United States and are examining mitigation options," Gates wrote in the letter. "We are working closely with our allies to determine what risks our mission partners may face as a result of the disclosure."...
Over the summer, the Pentagon created a team of more than 100 personnel made up of mostly intelligence analysts from various branches of the Defense Department as well as the FBI, who were involved in the round-the-clock review. Gates: Leaked documents don't reveal key intel, but risks remain
The phrase, "sensitive intelligence sources or methods" is primarily referring to satellites & signal intelligence. Allies and informants, key resources when fighting a counter-insurgency, have been put at risk by being named.
“My attitude on this is that there are two areas of culpability,” Gates said on ABC’s This Week. “One is legal culpability. And that's up to the Justice Department and others -- that's not my arena.
“But there's also a moral culpability,” he added. “And that's where I think the verdict is guilty on WikiLeaks. They have put this out without any regard whatsoever for the consequences.”
Those consequences could be the loss of innocent lives, Gates said, and not just those of American troops.
“If I'm angry, it is because I believe that this information puts those in Afghanistan who have helped us at risk. It puts our soldiers at risk because they can learn a lot -- our adversaries can learn a lot about our techniques, tactics and procedures from the body of these leaked documents,” the secretary said.
Gates said that having an intelligence background, he knows that “protecting your sources is sacrosanct.” He noted that “there was no sense of responsibility or accountability” associated with the leak of information.WikiLeaks Guilty on Moral Grounds, Gates Says
After WikiLeaks published a trove of U.S. intelligence documents—some of which listed the names and villages of Afghans who had been secretly cooperating with the American military—it didn’t take long for the Taliban to react. A spokesman for the group quickly threatened to “punish” any Afghan listed as having “collaborated” with the U.S. and the Kabul authorities against the growing Taliban insurgency. In recent days, the Taliban has demonstrated
Because it's a moral and logical certainty that all the interests of the USA are precisely the same as those of the entire world, and that any "opposing faction" using intelligence against the USA is, by definition, evil?
The "entire world" includes the Taliban and Al Qaeda. When Wikileaks released the names of Afghans who were working with the US against the Taliban, it made them targets. The Taliban formed groups to scour the documents for names and places. When the informants are killed or moved, they can no longer help in the battle against the terrorists of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. That isn't a good thing, especially as the Taliban are extending their reach to attacks in the US, India, possibly Europe, and other places. Now, if you have a plan to inform everybody in the world except the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and their associates, about the names of informants against them, critical sensitive targets, etc., I'm sure a lot of people would love to hear it.
Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks' publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals, The Times newspaper reported Wednesday.
The article says, in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort.
One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live.
"The leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans," a senior official at the Afghan foreign ministry told The Times on condition of anonymity. "The U.S. is both morally and legally responsible for any harm that the leaks might cause to the individuals, particularly those who have been named. It will further limit the U.S./international access to the uncensored views of Afghans."
One former intelligence official told the paper that the Taliban could launch revenge attacks on "traitors" in the coming days.
The women were "very credible" witnesses, he said. "They have given very detailed stories about what they have been through."
Assange's reputation is less the focus of scrutiny online, but an acquaintance who met him and both women in Stockholm around the time of the alleged assaults told the Guardian he had warned Assange that his behaviour towards women was going to get him into trouble.
"I don't think it was a conspiracy, but this provided a golden opportunity for the enemies of WikiLeaks to use the situation to neutralise him," said the man, who wanted to remain anonymous. "A personality like Assange, who is known throughout the world, in the media every day, has a huge attraction to women. A lot of women invited him to their beds and he took that opportunity too much... all the time.
"I spoke to him about this. I warned him that it was not a good way to behave ethically and also in terms of his security....
"These two women were molested by Mr Julian Assange at two different times, independently of each other," he said. One of the two women, who met Assange at a lecture he gave in Stockholm in August, wanted to contact him after the alleged assault because she wanted him to take a test for sexually transmitted infections. She contacted the second woman, who had helped organise the lecture, to see if she could help her to find him. "When they spoke to each other they realised they had been through something very similar so they went to the police. That's not odd," he said.
"They decided to go to the police, to inform the police of what happened, to ask for advice; also they were interested in whether there was a risk that they could have got HIV. They were not sure whether they should make a police complaint, they wanted to have some advice. But when they told the police officer, she realised that what they were telling her was a crime and she reported that to the public prosecutor, who decided to arrest Assange."
Dear reader, what troubles your mind so? Come, let us reason together. What shall we discuss? The Fenians, or the Filibusters? The Comintern, or the Kuomintang? Lebensraum, Continuous Revolution, Socialism in One Country, or the Monroe Doctrine? Socialism with a Human Face, perhaps? Red Guards, White Guards, or Black Panthers? Glasnost, or Lenin's New Economic Policy? The Long March, the Loa Dong, or the Great Leap Forward? NATO? SEATO? Various vetoes? Or, perhaps, you are concerned that I am unaware of the Oracle who is the fraud of all wisdom? Do not weep, but share your troubles with me, I implore you. What nugget of..."truth" do you have?
So if the US had won the war, you'd probably just get another Saudi Arabia, just without all the oil revenues.
If South Vietnam and the US had won the war, it likely would have lead in time to a free and prosperous South Vietnam, similar to South Korea, or Taiwan, for that matter. Do you have any particular objections to South Korea or Taiwan? (I'm not sure why you think Saudi Arabia is an apt comparison.) On another point, if the outcome is going to be a corrupt dictatorship anyway, wouldn't you prefer one that was friendly to your country, that could be influenced towards moderation, rather than one that was hostile? Why would you prefer that a country end up being controlled by a hostile government?
Pretty much. There always an "ist" of some sort to battle against. There were fascists, that went away. Then came communists, that got old.
You seem to be confusing militant, aggressive, ideological nation states like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union with women's fashions. They didn't just "go away" or "get old". Nazi Germany was defeated by a hideously expensive war* that ultimately resulted in its invasion, military defeat, and dismemberment into 4 occupied zones and 2 countries (East & West Germany). The West contended with Communism's greatest power block (the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact) in Eastern Europe at great expense through the Cold War. It was by no means clear that the West and the values of democracy and free enterprise would win against them. And the struggle against Communism isn't really over yet, is it? At least the Chinese are reforming themselves a bit. Good thing too, since Communism killed about 100,000,000 people.
Now it's terrorist. You have to tell people who the bad guys are or else they start looking at what you've been up to.
Considering that they only released a tiny fraction of the cables, and those were redacted by professional journalists from several major newspapers, I don't think there's anything in there that would even remotely qualify it under that description
Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks' publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals, The Times newspaper reported Wednesday.
The article says, in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort.
One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live.
"The leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans," a senior official at the Afghan foreign ministry told The Times on condition of anonymity. "The U.S. is both morally and legally responsible for any harm that the leaks might cause to the individuals, particularly those who have been named. It will further limit the U.S./international access to the uncensored views of Afghans."
One former intelligence official told the paper that the Taliban could launch revenge attacks on "traitors" in the coming days.
Regardless of whether they've broken a world-changing story so far, they've produced a chilling effect on corruption.
It isn't so much corruption that is shut down, as American diplomatic operations. Dealing with actual corruption would require a scapel, not the blunt object of the Wikileaks releases.
Battered by a scandal which seems to provide a fresh wave of embarrassment with each passing day, the US government is being forced to undertake a major reshuffle of the embassy staff, military personnel and intelligence operatives whose work has been laid bare by the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks.
The Obama administration was yesterday facing a crisis in its diplomatic service, amid growing evidence that the ongoing publication of a tranche of supposedly-confidential communiqués will make normal work difficult, if not dangerous, for important State Department employees across the world.
"In the short run, we're almost out of business," a senior US diplomat told the Reuters news agency, saying it could take five years to rebuild trust. "It is really, really bad. I cannot exaggerate it. In all honesty, nobody wants to talk to us... Some people still have to, particularly (in) government but... they are already asking us things like, 'Are you going to write about this?'"
"We're going to have to pull out some of our best people – the diplomats who best represented the United States and were the most thoughtful in their analysis – because they dared to report back the truth about the nations in which they serve."
... in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort.
One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live.
"The leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans," a senior official at the Afghan foreign ministry told The Times on condition of anonymity. "The U.S. is both morally and legally responsible for any harm that the leaks might cause to the individuals, particularly those who have been named. It will further limit the U.S./international access to the uncensored views of Afghans."
One former intelligence official told the paper that the Taliban could launch revenge attacks on "traitors" in the coming days.
I remember watching the news videos of the last remaining people being pulled from the U.S. Compount in Saigon by helicopter. Not much winning there either.....
On the contrary, what you saw there was the North Vietnamese Army winning. And why were they winning?
Historians have directly attributed the fall of Saigon in 1975 to the cessation of American aid. Without the necessary funds, South Vietnam found it logistically and financially impossible to defeat the North Vietnamese army. Moreover, the withdrawal of aid encouraged North Vietnam to begin an effective military offensive against South Vietnam. Given the monetary and military investment in Vietnam, former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage compared the American withdrawal to "a pregnant lady, abandoned by her lover to face her fate." 2 Historian Lewis Fanning went so far as to say that "it was not the Hanoi communists who won the war, but rather the American Congress that lost it." 3
"The Wall" doesn't indicate anything about what government controls Vietnam, it is a memorial to American service members who lost their lives in the war to defend South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese lost far more lives than the United States, have political control over Vietnam, and consider themselves to have won the war. That sacrifice of American lives was thrown away as noted above. South Vietname could have been free today, just like South Korea. Of course, that would mean actually winning, and some people just won't see that happen. (See Sleeping With the Enemy)
So because you don't like how some frank discussions were revealed, you think it's appropriate to cover up killings and who knows what else under a veil of "classified"?
There are procedures for dealing with questionable deaths on the battlefield, both as potential war crimes and for compensating the victim's families. Manning didn't make use of them, but instead collected and distributed secret government documents to do as much damage as he could. Now we are dealing with informants against terrorists being killed, disruption of highly sensitve diplomatic discussions that could lead to open war, and more destabilization of the Middle East.
More investment in European External Action Service (EEAS) security, loss of goodwill in the EU's special relationship with the US and heightened tension in the Middle East are all likely consequences of the WikiLeaks scandal, EU insiders say.
The publishing of the stolen secret documents by Wikileaks makes about as much sense as protesting problems with the Social Security Administration driving some people to suicide due to delays by publishing the social security number of all Americans and exposing them to identity theft, fraud, and other problems.
Wikileaks is worse than that - it's actions will result in people being killed, and maybe a fresh war or two.
WASHINGTON—Canadians have an “Alice In Wonderland” attitude toward global terrorism, the former head of Canada’s spy service told a U.S. counterpart in 2008, according to a secret American memo disclosed Monday.
Canadian Security Intelligence Service Director Jim Judd is also quoted as saying that Canadian courts have the security service “tied in knots,” hampering their ability to detect and prevent terror attacks inside Canada and beyond.
Mohammed is one of the estimated 350 suspected terrorists living in Canada, taking advantage of the nation's liberal refugee program, which takes in about 60 percent of the people who apply, more than three times the U.S. rate.
"Anybody can apply for refugee status. All you have to do is arrive and say,
'I've been persecuted,' and we give them the benefit of the doubt," said Martin Collacott, former director general for security services at the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs. "Within days of arriving you can get welfare, free dental and medical. And if you need to, you can just disappear in the country."
The Criminal Intelligence Service, Canada's CIA, estimates there are about 50 terrorist organizations spread throughout Canada, including 350 members of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Tamil Tigers and al Qaeda. Among them is Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian with ties to al Qaeda who was caught by U.S. immigration officials attempting to sneak explosives in the trunk of his car, from Canada, in December 1999.
While awaiting approval of his refugee claim in Montreal, Ressam traveled to an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, where he learned how to make bombs, the CIS has reported. Ressam later confessed his plot to blow up Los Angeles International Airport at the turn of the millennium.
"Canada is our weak link," said Vincent Cannistraro, retired chief of counterterrorism operations for the CIA. "U.S. security is only as good as Canadian security."
U.S. officials describe the Iranian regime as the world's "central banker of terrorism." Indeed, Tehran has a nine-figure line item in its budget to support terrorism, sending hundreds of millions of dollars to various groups each year; the payments to Hizballah alone are as much as $200 million annually. According to Canadian intelligence, "[I]n February 1999, it was reported that Palestinian police discovered documents that attest to the transfer of $35 million to Hamas from the Iranian Intelligence Service (MOIS), money reportedly meant to finance terrorist activities against Israeli targets." Illustrating how such support is part of official government policy, from 2001 to 2006, Iran transferred $50 million to Hizballah fronts in Lebanon by sending funds from its central bank through Bank Saderat's London subsidiary.
Iranian support for terrorism goes well beyond the financial realm, however. Its well-known sponsorship of Palestinian terrorist organizations, for example, has included training and related contributions. Shortly after the second intifada erupted in September 2000, the regime assigned Mughniyeh himself to help Palestinian militant groups. According to a former Clinton administration official, "Mughniyeh got orders from Tehran to work with Hamas"; he was tasked with assisting PIJ as well.
Similarly, according to the U.S. government, Iran's al-Qods Force -- a wing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) -- has a "long history" of providing all types of support to Hizballah, including training, guidance, and arms. In addition to running training camps in Lebanon, al-Qods has trained more than 3,000 Hizballah operatives at its own facilities in Iran. The unit also played an important role in rearming Hizballah following the summer 2006 war with Israel. According to the Treasury Department, al-Qods has provided a wide variety of weapons and financial support to the Taliban as well, in support of the group's anti-coalition activity in Afghanistan.
Iran also keeps threatening to cut off the world's oil supply by closing the Straight of Hormuz.
Of course they are concerned that the US may invade since Iran has wealth to extract and won't play along with the US, so they're developing nuclear weapons.
That's a laugh. The US gets the oil it needs from other countries while Japan, China, and other US allies and friends buy Iran's oil. That also doesn't take into account the large oil reserves that the US has that are undeveloped.
“If this [an Israeli attack] happens, which, of course, we do not foresee, its ultimate result would be to expedite the last breath of the Zionist regime,” Ahmad Vahidi, the Iranian Defence Minister, said on state television.
“Iran is standing on 50 percent of the world’s energy and should it so decide Europe will have to spend the winter in cold,” Hossein Salami, deputy commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards, said in a meeting with war veterans and volunteers in Ker
So, it is bias to recognize Soros is a billionaire and a leftist activist? Hmmm. OK, I'll meet you half way.
1.5 million people have died as a result of our attack on Iraq.... many of them not from bombs but from starvation after the infrastructure needed for their water, food, and medical care was destroyed.
There is nothing within your links that makes the study 'almost certainly' anything.
Your bias and ignorance are showing. You also clearly aren't giving Saddam his due in neglecting and misusing the Iraqi infrastructure which has greatly added to the misery in Iraq.
How much better off would the Iraqi people have been if Saddam had built water, sewage, and power plants instead of a series of palace complexes, and smuggled luxury goods and weapons? The Iraqi people were not helped by the abuse of the Oil for Food program / scandal. We helped lift the yoke from the Iraqi people and are helping them rebuild their country. They are likely to end up far better off than if Saddam had continued in power, and probably with many fewer dead. (What's that? Oil?)
And all they have is their opinion, because even the Department of Defense was forced to admit [slashdot.org] that the facts do not back that position.
Late last week, just four days after the documents were published, death threats began arriving at the homes of key tribal elders in southern Afghanistan. And over the weekend one tribal elder, Khalifa Abdullah, who the Taliban believed had been in close contact with the Americans, was taken from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, and executed by insurgent gunmen.
Funny, who would have thought that freedom of speech could actually work?
Funny, who would have thought that publishing lists of informants against terrorists would result in them being killed or intimidated? Doesn't that contradict all of our experience with the Mafia?
In fiscal year 2010, the federal government is projected to spend $3.6 trillion, amounting to 24 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). While the level of 2010 expenditures — as a share of GDP — exceeds those of recent years, the composition of the budget largely resembles the patterns of recent years. Of that $3.6 trillion, almost $2.2 trillion will be financed by federal tax revenues. The remaining $1.4 trillion will be financed by borrowing; this deficit will ultimately be paid for by future taxpayers. (See box for the recession’s impact on the budget.) As shown in the graph below, three major areas of spending each make up about one-fifth of the budget:
Defense and security: In 2010, some 20 percent of the budget, or $715 billion, will pay for defense and security-related international activities. The bulk of the spending in this category reflects the underlying costs of the Department of Defense and other security-related activities. The total also includes the cost of supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is expected to total $172 billion in 2010.
So your case is that it is wrong to expect no innocent pregnant women or children to be shot at checkpoints, or adults murdered during interrogation by our military? We're not talking about mistakes made in the heat of battle
You and your team are manning a traffic control point in Baghdad. A car is speeding toward you at 40 MPH - it will be on you in 20 seconds. It is ignoring the multitude of signs in Arabic and English warning that a checkpoint is ahead, to slowdown and stop, and that deadly force is authorized to enforce the checkpoint. You flash lights - no effect. You fire a warning shot with tracers - no effect. Now, do you:
A) Hold fire because it might be that 1 in 10,000 cars with a pregnant woman on her way to the hospital. (And you've had many vehicles with pregnant women stop before.)
B) Open fire to halt the car to avoid being killed in a bomb blast, attack, or whatever.
C) Run away and hope that you get out of the blast zone from a couple of hundred pounds of explosives (fat chance).
So, we are, in fact, talking about things that happen, very quickly, at random times, by surprise, in the heat of battle, as a result of the driver not obeying signs and signals to stop, deliberate provocation, suicide by police, a tragic accident, or a deliberate attack. And lets not forget that Al Qaeda and company have been known to force or trick people into attacks, including children and the mentally ill, or to hide a bomb in someone's vehicle and explode it remotely without them knowing about it. You will be just as dead from 10 kilograms of explosive in the hands of the mentally ill as you will be from 10 kilograms of explosives in the hands of a university trained electrical engineer turned suicide bomber. Mentally Disabled Female Homicide Bombers Blow Up Pet Markets in Baghdad, Killing Dozens Iraq: girl suicide bomber may have been forced into it by husband's "female relatives"
Expecting that American troops won't murder prisoners is reasonable. When a detainee has died (murder or otherwise), it has generally been investigated and, if warranted, the guilty punished. The US has safely processed and released many tens of thousands of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm curious... you seem comfortable slandering American troops, do you ever condemn Al Qaeda for any of the vileattacks they deliberately commit?
Late last week, just four days after the documents were published, death threats began arriving at the homes of key tribal elders in southern Afghanistan. And over the weekend one tribal elder, Khalifa Abdullah, who the Taliban believed had been in close contact with the Americans, was taken from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province's embattled Arghandab district, and executed by insurgent gunmen.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so there's the odd dude who's moderately well off who wants to take out some infidels, but if you are positing in any way that that makes up the majority of people who actually carry out terrorist attacks (planning != carrying out), then I call bullshit.
Sorry.
Research Reveals New Profile of Suicide Bombers
Just as the educated tend to make better workers, they also make "better" terrorists.
The extremists have different beliefs, priorities, and concerns. Although they believe they are destined to rule the world, that their way is best and just, that Allah is on their side, only 1/6 the world believe in Islam, the mighty Islamic empire of 1,000 years ago is fallen, the Caliphate was dissolved 90 years ago, and immoral Westerners are rich and powerful. It vexes them, and they intend to put the world right.
How many terrorist attacks of any sort have taken place in Sweden or The Netherlands?
Sweden had its first suicide bombing this last weekend. The Netherlands have seen a number of killings, perhaps to some disturbing views: Dutch Muslim: 'Murder is normal'.
How many middle class persons of any country - people two or three times above that country's poverty line - have parked an explosives-laden truck next to a building and blown it up?
The middle class are strongly represented among terrorists and leaders of terrorist organizations. Here are just a few examples, there are many more:
“Doctor’s Plot” Trial Examines Unexpected Source for UK Terrorist Attacks
MOHAMMED ATTA - 9/11 Ring Leader
Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri (MD) - Al-Qaeda's theological leader
It might be easier if this was all about poverty and social safety nets, but that isn't the case. Increasing numbers of young Muslims born and raised in the West are taking up arms and bombs to kill in the name of what they call Jihad. They are being radicalized in Western Europe.
The poverty/terror myth
That is one of the worst citation mangling cases I have seen in a while. Moderated troll for only lifting the parts that support your argument from the linked doc and then attempting to speak with authority. Feeble when the sources are one click away
You are a sad little troll. You aren't part of the Electronic Jihad by any chance? Or maybe simply practicing Taqiyya?
Please read the links. They support my statements, although I wish they didn't. I would prefer that we could live in peace.
Another useful story: What al-Qaida Really Wants.
Statistical analysis shows that the amount of terrorist incidents is actually quite small, but the governments around the world like to exaggerate how many there actually are, to deprive decent hard working people of their freedom and democracy, and pee a lot of money up a wall in the process.
Your sig is, "Take Nobody's Word For It." Very fitting. You don't know what you are talking about.
The list of terrorist attacks in just 2008 isn't short, and doesn't include the many arrests and foiled plots. Wikipedia notes that it is incomplete.
Remember Mumbai? 166 killed, and 370 or so wounded? Al Qaeda would like to do the same in Europe. Why hasn't it happened? Active security measures and intelligence.
Remember 9/11? Why hasn't that occurred? Al Qaeda hasn't lost interest in using aircraft to attack buildings or stadiums. Active security measures and intelligence.
Without proper measures, Iraq's recent history of terrorism could be our future.
Civil Rights Theater seems to be at least as popular as Security Theater.
Terrorist = "someone opposing any government who should be dead"
Calling someone a terrorist is just a lame excuse to place them outside the law.
So your thinking is that no government in their right mind would label the people who do things like ths terrorists?
Or this?
How about we just stop killing and otherwise pissing off brown-skinned people?
You don't understand what is actually happening. Read Bin Laden's Letter to America. You will see that the actual demand isn't to be "left alone". Bin Laden's first demand is:
Bin Laden demands that we convert to Islam. He follows that up with demands that we ditch the Constitution, implement Islamic Sharia law, and do away with the separation of church and state. Among other things we would have to start killing homosexuals and adulterers, end the charging of interest on bank loans, put an end to drug use, pornography, and alcohol use, amputating the hands of thieves, and many other things. Dressing "immodestly" could get you whipped, which probably means burkas for women. Men would have to grow their beards out, or face a whipping. Crucifixion may be a required punishment for some crimes. Afghanistan under the Taliban was almost ideal to them. If we do not agree to this we can expect that his minions will continue to try to kill us.
It is not especially significant that Bin Laden issued that demand to the United States, in time every country will have to deal with it. Subduing the United States is just one step along their path, and they understand that it could take 500 years. Many countries have been attacked. Stockholm had a suicide bomber this weekend. (Thankfully it appears that one of the Stockholm terrorist's bombs blew prematurely and he couldn't get about five more planted - otherwise it might have been another Madrid, London 7/7, Bali, or similar bombing.)
What Do the Terrorists Want? [A Caliphate]
Good background here.
Ignoring them won't make them go away. They have their own goals - nothing we do other than covert to Islam or fight them will dissuade them. Trying to buy them off or deal with them only delays the inevitable. We are in for a long struggle that will be far bloodier for us if we aren't clear about it. Al Qaeda has a f
Well, welcome to the 21 century you can now picket the business from the comfort of your own home.
And be arrested be in the comfort of your own home for "picketing". A distinction between them is that carrying signs and marching tends to be legal as long as yet let people through. DDOS, not so much.
We don't have to wonder, since the SecDef has said that no US soldiers, missions, or security were harmed or jeapordized by the Wikileaks releases.
Not quite. Secretary of Defense Gates said that the release of the stolen classified documents by Wikileaks is "likely to cause significant harm or damage to national security interests of the United States".
The phrase, "sensitive intelligence sources or methods" is primarily referring to satellites & signal intelligence. Allies and informants, key resources when fighting a counter-insurgency, have been put at risk by being named.
With apologies to an unnamed NATO official (what sort of job did he have?) the Taliban are starting to hunt down people. (The Taliban have assembled a group to examine the Wikileaks documents.)
It is a mystery.
Because it's a moral and logical certainty that all the interests of the USA are precisely the same as those of the entire world, and that any "opposing faction" using intelligence against the USA is, by definition, evil?
The "entire world" includes the Taliban and Al Qaeda. When Wikileaks released the names of Afghans who were working with the US against the Taliban, it made them targets. The Taliban formed groups to scour the documents for names and places. When the informants are killed or moved, they can no longer help in the battle against the terrorists of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. That isn't a good thing, especially as the Taliban are extending their reach to attacks in the US, India, possibly Europe, and other places. Now, if you have a plan to inform everybody in the world except the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and their associates, about the names of informants against them, critical sensitive targets, etc., I'm sure a lot of people would love to hear it.
WikiLeaks Reportedly Outs 100s of Afghan Informants
Suspect in Times Square bombing attempt was paid by Pakistani Taliban, indictment says
KUNG-FU TERRORISTS TO TARGET WEMBLEY
Now, if you don't think terrorists planning to crash an airplane into a stadium full of people is evil, I think there is something wrong with you.
Having consensual unsafe sex is not rape unless you live in crazy-town.
When the woman withdraws consent the man withdraws his organ, or it is rape.... unless you live in crazy-town.
Assange allegedly didn't follow that rule, he isn't in crazy-town, so therefore it is possibly.....
PS - Anyone heard anything about Hans Reiser lately? (Creator of the Reiser Filesystem so loved in Linux land.)
Julian Assange rape allegations: treatment of women 'unfair and absurd'
Dear reader, what troubles your mind so? Come, let us reason together. What shall we discuss? The Fenians, or the Filibusters? The Comintern, or the Kuomintang? Lebensraum, Continuous Revolution, Socialism in One Country, or the Monroe Doctrine? Socialism with a Human Face, perhaps? Red Guards, White Guards, or Black Panthers? Glasnost, or Lenin's New Economic Policy? The Long March, the Loa Dong, or the Great Leap Forward? NATO? SEATO? Various vetoes? Or, perhaps, you are concerned that I am unaware of the Oracle who is the fraud of all wisdom? Do not weep, but share your troubles with me, I implore you. What nugget of ..."truth" do you have?
So if the US had won the war, you'd probably just get another Saudi Arabia, just without all the oil revenues.
If South Vietnam and the US had won the war, it likely would have lead in time to a free and prosperous South Vietnam, similar to South Korea, or Taiwan, for that matter. Do you have any particular objections to South Korea or Taiwan? (I'm not sure why you think Saudi Arabia is an apt comparison.) On another point, if the outcome is going to be a corrupt dictatorship anyway, wouldn't you prefer one that was friendly to your country, that could be influenced towards moderation, rather than one that was hostile? Why would you prefer that a country end up being controlled by a hostile government?
Pretty much. There always an "ist" of some sort to battle against. There were fascists, that went away. Then came communists, that got old.
You seem to be confusing militant, aggressive, ideological nation states like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union with women's fashions. They didn't just "go away" or "get old". Nazi Germany was defeated by a hideously expensive war* that ultimately resulted in its invasion, military defeat, and dismemberment into 4 occupied zones and 2 countries (East & West Germany). The West contended with Communism's greatest power block (the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact) in Eastern Europe at great expense through the Cold War. It was by no means clear that the West and the values of democracy and free enterprise would win against them. And the struggle against Communism isn't really over yet, is it? At least the Chinese are reforming themselves a bit. Good thing too, since Communism killed about 100,000,000 people.
Now it's terrorist. You have to tell people who the bad guys are or else they start looking at what you've been up to.
Really? You have to be told? Just a little help? Well, things can get a little confusing for some, I guess.
*That was the 2nd World War - maybe you've heard of it? All the other wars are jealous about its death toll and cost.
Considering that they only released a tiny fraction of the cables, and those were redacted by professional journalists from several major newspapers, I don't think there's anything in there that would even remotely qualify it under that description
Not quite.
WikiLeaks Reportedly Outs 100s of Afghan Informants
Blood Already on Assange's Hands (and the WikiLeaks-Gitmo Connection)
It is especially interesting that Wikileaks has endangered informants against the Taliban since the Taliban are reaching into the United States to train terrorists and fund attacks:
Suspect in Times Square bombing attempt was paid by Pakistani Taliban, indictment says
Regardless of whether they've broken a world-changing story so far, they've produced a chilling effect on corruption.
It isn't so much corruption that is shut down, as American diplomatic operations. Dealing with actual corruption would require a scapel, not the blunt object of the Wikileaks releases.
Julian Assange’s EgoLeaks
WikiLeaks’ Selective Morality
WikiLeaks Reportedly Outs 100s of Afghan Informants
Blood Already on Assange’s Hands (and the WikiLeaks-Gitmo Connection)
I remember watching the news videos of the last remaining people being pulled from the U.S. Compount in Saigon by helicopter. Not much winning there either.....
On the contrary, what you saw there was the North Vietnamese Army winning. And why were they winning?
What happened when Democrats in Congress cut off funding for the Vietnam War?
Sleeping With the Enemy
.
What I refer to as "The Wall". No winning there
"The Wall" doesn't indicate anything about what government controls Vietnam, it is a memorial to American service members who lost their lives in the war to defend South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese lost far more lives than the United States, have political control over Vietnam, and consider themselves to have won the war. That sacrifice of American lives was thrown away as noted above. South Vietname could have been free today, just like South Korea. Of course, that would mean actually winning, and some people just won't see that happen. (See Sleeping With the Enemy)
So because you don't like how some frank discussions were revealed, you think it's appropriate to cover up killings and who knows what else under a veil of "classified"?
There are procedures for dealing with questionable deaths on the battlefield, both as potential war crimes and for compensating the victim's families. Manning didn't make use of them, but instead collected and distributed secret government documents to do as much damage as he could. Now we are dealing with informants against terrorists being killed, disruption of highly sensitve diplomatic discussions that could lead to open war, and more destabilization of the Middle East.
EU officials give first analysis of WikiLeaks impact
Loose lips sink friendly ships
The publishing of the stolen secret documents by Wikileaks makes about as much sense as protesting problems with the Social Security Administration driving some people to suicide due to delays by publishing the social security number of all Americans and exposing them to identity theft, fraud, and other problems.
Wikileaks is worse than that - it's actions will result in people being killed, and maybe a fresh war or two.
Canada naïve about terrorism, CSIS head says in WikiLeaks memo
Alleged terrorism plot targeted Canada
Toronto terror plot foiled -- Canada
From 2001 - Canada called 'weak link' on terrorism
It's quite absurd for you to call Iran dangerous; they haven't been at war for years.
You're joking right?
Longstanding Support for Terrorism
Iran also keeps threatening to cut off the world's oil supply by closing the Straight of Hormuz.
Of course they are concerned that the US may invade since Iran has wealth to extract and won't play along with the US, so they're developing nuclear weapons.
That's a laugh. The US gets the oil it needs from other countries while Japan, China, and other US allies and friends buy Iran's oil. That also doesn't take into account the large oil reserves that the US has that are undeveloped.
No, the Iranian's have a very different outlook.
Ahmadinejad: Destroy Israel, End Crisis
Iran's missiles are ‘ready to destroy Israel’
Iran says can cut energy to Europe, hit enemies
Your bias is showing.
So, it is bias to recognize Soros is a billionaire and a leftist activist? Hmmm. OK, I'll meet you half way.
1.5 million people have died as a result of our attack on Iraq. ... many of them not from bombs but from starvation after the infrastructure needed for their water, food, and medical care was destroyed.
There is nothing within your links that makes the study 'almost certainly' anything.
Your bias and ignorance are showing. You also clearly aren't giving Saddam his due in neglecting and misusing the Iraqi infrastructure which has greatly added to the misery in Iraq.
How much better off would the Iraqi people have been if Saddam had built water, sewage, and power plants instead of a series of palace complexes, and smuggled luxury goods and weapons? The Iraqi people were not helped by the abuse of the Oil for Food program / scandal. We helped lift the yoke from the Iraqi people and are helping them rebuild their country. They are likely to end up far better off than if Saddam had continued in power, and probably with many fewer dead. (What's that? Oil?)
And all they have is their opinion, because even the Department of Defense was forced to admit [slashdot.org] that the facts do not back that position.
Just random events then.......
Who could imagine they could be sensitive about that sort of thing?
Funny, who would have thought that freedom of speech could actually work?
Funny, who would have thought that publishing lists of informants against terrorists would result in them being killed or intimidated? Doesn't that contradict all of our experience with the Mafia?
I think most people will find this clearer:
Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go?
More here.
So your case is that it is wrong to expect no innocent pregnant women or children to be shot at checkpoints, or adults murdered during interrogation by our military?
We're not talking about mistakes made in the heat of battle
You and your team are manning a traffic control point in Baghdad. A car is speeding toward you at 40 MPH - it will be on you in 20 seconds. It is ignoring the multitude of signs in Arabic and English warning that a checkpoint is ahead, to slowdown and stop, and that deadly force is authorized to enforce the checkpoint. You flash lights - no effect. You fire a warning shot with tracers - no effect. Now, do you:
A) Hold fire because it might be that 1 in 10,000 cars with a pregnant woman on her way to the hospital. (And you've had many vehicles with pregnant women stop before.)
B) Open fire to halt the car to avoid being killed in a bomb blast, attack, or whatever.
C) Run away and hope that you get out of the blast zone from a couple of hundred pounds of explosives (fat chance).
Your answer? A? Let's see what you won for you and your team!
So, we are, in fact, talking about things that happen, very quickly, at random times, by surprise, in the heat of battle, as a result of the driver not obeying signs and signals to stop, deliberate provocation, suicide by police, a tragic accident, or a deliberate attack.
And lets not forget that Al Qaeda and company have been known to force or trick people into attacks, including children and the mentally ill, or to hide a bomb in someone's vehicle and explode it remotely without them knowing about it. You will be just as dead from 10 kilograms of explosive in the hands of the mentally ill as you will be from 10 kilograms of explosives in the hands of a university trained electrical engineer turned suicide bomber.
Mentally Disabled Female Homicide Bombers Blow Up Pet Markets in Baghdad, Killing Dozens
Iraq: girl suicide bomber may have been forced into it by husband's "female relatives"
Expecting that American troops won't murder prisoners is reasonable. When a detainee has died (murder or otherwise), it has generally been investigated and, if warranted, the guilty punished. The US has safely processed and released many tens of thousands of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm curious... you seem comfortable slandering American troops, do you ever condemn Al Qaeda for any of the vile attacks they deliberately commit?
I guess you've fallen behind on Taliban press releases and activities.
I don't know why anyone would expect anything else given their sensibilities and tendencies toward killing the innocent. And don't forget, the hand of the Taliban is reaching beyond their borders.