This Retribution Will Not Be Televised

[Onkel Neal]

Love this article, is a swaggering response to the "you can't win against terrorism" rant so many spouted since 9/11. :O:



You won't be reading bulletins on the work of these people—special forces, CIA operatives, contractors—on the 10th anniversary of 9/11. Their job is to make that day a slow news day. To follow their work, you have to read sites like the Long War Journal, which tells you what happened on Aug. 16, Aug. 19, and Sept. 1. And you have to read investigative stories like those by Washington Post reporters Greg Miller, Julie Tate, Dana Priest, and William Arkin, which tell you what the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command are quietly doing in the air and on the ground.


http://www.slate.com/id/2303133/

They don't know who their messing with...literally. :salute:

[Tribesman]

That isn't winning against terrorism, that is winning against a few terrorists.

[Tchocky]

Yeah, but the whole idea of a war against "terrorism" is ridiculously skewed as a plan of action. It's like a war against sarcasm. I'm glad the current administration shies away from that sort of language and sticks to talking (mostly) about results.

[AVGWarhawk]

Where would you like to start on "the war against terrorism?" :hmmm: What would be Tribesman/Tchocky plan of action to win the war on terrorism? After all, it has to start somewhere. Normally, if a leader is taken out the cohesion of group is lost. Look like the leaders are targeted.

[Growler]

Ultimately, whether you can win against terrorism is not so much the issue. So, "You can't fight terrorism." Does that mean you aren't going to fight at all? I mean, are you really not going to fight, just because you might not win? I can guarantee what happens if you don't fight.

[Tchocky]

After all, it has to start somewhere. Normally, if a leader is taken out the cohesion of group is lost. Look like the leaders are targeted.

Yeah, it's not a bad way to work against groups who seek to cause you harm. I'm saying that calling it a "war against terrorism" is a stupid idea.

Also - what Growler said

[Oberon]

If this is a war, it'll be a war that will never end.

[Growler]

If this is a war, it'll be a war that will never end.

See also War on Drugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs).

[Dowly]

Where would you like to start on "the war against terrorism?" :hmmm: What would be Tribesman/Tchocky plan of action to win the war on terrorism? After all, it has to start somewhere. Normally, if a leader is taken out the cohesion of group is lost. Look like the leaders are targeted.

War on terrorism is fought against an idea. The baddies won't just wake up
one day and give up on it. No matter how many of them you kill. It's like a virus,
unless every single one with that idea in their head is eliminated it just keeps
spreading.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah, it's not a bad way to work against groups who seek to cause you harm. I'm saying that calling it a "war against terrorism" is a stupid idea.



I agree. I guess for a lack of a better description of what is going on it will remain the war on terror. It reminds me of a 'police action' in Korea.

[AVGWarhawk]

War on terrorism is fought against an idea. The baddies won't just wake up
one day and give up on it. No matter how many of them you kill. It's like a virus,
unless every single one with that idea in their head is eliminated it just keeps
spreading.


Certainly there are many that have very little outlook on life. Here is something they can do. Three hots, a cot and AK47 plus all the plastic explosives you can handle. Gives them a purpose all be it possibly misdirected as it were.

[MH]

Love this article, is a swaggering response to the "you can't win against terrorism" rant so many spouted since 9/11. :O:



You can choke them and keep on pressing as long as it takes keeping them weak.

Having terror under control is sort of victory but different concept from defeating other nation.

[Tribesman]

Where would you like to start on "the war against terrorism?"
For a start you have to specify what terrorism is, then you have to take all those that fit into that definition and specify which ones in particular are you warring against and which you are not, themn you have to define what you would consider as a win against those specific groups.
War on terrorism and winning against terrorism are absolutely meaningless tripe unless you can clearly define them, a war aim that is unable to be defined is a war aim that can never be achieved which defaults the whole operation to an unwinnable war.

[Osmium Steele]

If this is a war, it'll be a war that will never end.

QFT!

This war started in earnest when The Prophet kicked the oracles out of Mecca. With the exception of the 50 year hiatus after WWI, it has been waged ever since.

Ask the Byzantines, Persians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Eastern Europeans, Spanish, etc. We were lulled to sleep by the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

We all know the goal is the spread of islam by any means neccesary. At any given time in history, this has been the responsibility of the zealous, radical, violent few. While the remaining 95%+ go about their daily lives enjoying the Prophet's peace.

[AVGWarhawk]

For a start you have to specify what terrorism is, then you have to take all those that fit into that definition and specify which ones in particular are you warring against and which you are not, themn you have to define what you would consider as a win against those specific groups.

Reading this I think of profiling. :hmmm:

War on terrorism and winning against terrorism are absolutely meaningless tripe unless you can clearly define them, a war aim that is unable to be defined is a war aim that can never be achieved which defaults the whole operation to an unwinnable war.

Agreed. Let's go with Dowly on this. "War on a few baddies"

[Jimbuna]

I doubt any of us will see an end to rerrorism in our lifetimes....better to do something than nothing though...otherwise what we may well see is a rapid growth in terrorism events/activities.

[Tribesman]

....better to do something than nothing though
That depends, it is better to do "something" if it gives a positive result, if the "something" has a negative result you would be better doing nothing.


Reading this I think of profiling.
How to make it work and how to prevent the specific terrorists you want to fight from getting round the profiling?
Plus how to not piss off people who are not terrorists but may fit your "profile", look at the grief France had with profiling over Algeria.

Agreed. Let's go with Dowly on this. "War on a few baddies"
Yes, sounds like the end of post#2

[AVGWarhawk]

How to make it work and how to prevent the specific terrorists you want to fight from getting round the profiling?
Plus how to not piss off people who are not terrorists but may fit your "profile", look at the grief France had with profiling over Algeria.

We can't make it work by the book. We can not get around profiling. So what is the next best recourse? Go after the generals and let the cohesive force lose ground. This is the road (after going into Iraq for what good reason I can not give and Afghanistan) that has been taken. We have come full circle. We can only hit them here and there. This is no clear line or front. There is no parcel of land we are looking to take back. It is hard to define what the war on terrorism really is. Again, I refer back to the baddies.

Yes, sounds like the end of post#2

Yes it certainly does!

[Catfish]

The cause for this "war against terorism" is still umm let's say "debatable.


http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/35/35438/1.html
Sorry, in german - but i did not find the original. Thing is, the coordination of the attacks were impossible to stage for terrorists, the interceptors were guided in the wrong direction, the terrorists (?) exactly knew where the radar shadows were - very strange material

The holding pattern:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13723849/T8-B16-Otis-Langley-and-AF1-Fdr-2-of-2-Radar-Maps-Otis-Scrambles-129

Deleted tapes, scramble:
http://www.oredigger61.org/?p=2028

Exercises for hijacking the planes, NORAD:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16411947/NORAD-Exercises-Hijack-Summary

Anyone remembers the "Lone gunmen". Government lets passenger crash into the WTC, objective being a pretext for new wars with a massive and ongoing increase of defence funds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3WW6eoLcLI

Official 9/11 report.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf



Initiative to find out what happened:
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-08/former-senator-mike-gravel-spearheads-california-911-truth-commission-initiative



From Neal's link:

" ... In the months afterward, the U.S. did what we're accustomed to doing after being assaulted.
We waged a war.
We invaded the country from which the attack had originated.
We took down the regime.
Two years later, we invaded another country and took down another regime, associating it (erroneously) with the terrorists who had struck us. ..."

Well .. :-?

I wonder if politicians know what was really staged and happened, whether they were informed about what really happened, and whether at least Bush knew it we will never know.
Obama leads a more professional war against terrorist leaders than Bush with those drones, but with a lot of collateral and political damage.
Founded on a cause that is .. debatable.

[Tribesman]

The cause for this "war against terorism" is still umm let's say "debatable.

Only for "truthers":doh:

[Catfish]

Only for truthers ?!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16411947/NORAD-Exercises-Hijack-Summary

Hm let's say there are some who "want to believe" and go too far ignoring facts, but there are also the others who conveniently ignore things that do not fit into their view of the world.
The article mentioned above is from september 7th 2011, and has lots of links to fresh, previously unpublished material. We will see what leaks to the public in the next years, even if we will never really know what happened.

[ZeeWolf]

I would love to see us killing the true terrorists that in fact Americas enemies,
those out to enslave us to debt. All those traitors that are connected to the
Internationalist Banksters. They are all like those connected to Ben Laden,
except they are far more dangerous to our nations survival then those tribe(s)
of camel jockeys ever could.
There was a time in America when we would have hanged them way before it
came to the disgraceful situation we face today. :yep:

[Tchocky]

They are all like those connected to Ben Laden

Most treacherous of the Scottish Highlands

[Jimbuna]

I would love to see us killing the true terrorists that in fact Americas enemies,
those out to enslave us to debt. All those traitors that are connected to the
Internationalist Banksters. They are all like those connected to Ben Laden,
except they are far more dangerous to our nations survival then those tribe(s)
of camel jockeys ever could.
There was a time in America when we would have hanged them way before it
came to the disgraceful situation we face today. :yep:

EH? :hmmm:

[Garion]

Most treacherous of the Scottish Highlands


Aye laddie, T'is the home of the Flying suicide haggis..... They are becoming a rare spicy speices though :D

Cheers

Garion

[Tribesman]

EH?
You don't expect someone who thinks the holocaust was a hoax to make sense do you?
Its the internationalist bankers of course, those that bring you both communism and capitalism as a global conspiracy to run the media.


Most treacherous of the Scottish Highlands
No thats Ben Affleck, or was it Ben Kingsley?
But anyway Glenroe is the worst by a binny dilly miley

[ZeeWolf]

Most treacherous of the Scottish Highlands

Treacherous as a cornered rat! :up:

Of course this my be a little premature to be so harsh on these banksters some may say.
But when those of us who are the victims of this financial treason and International
treachery finally see the result of these wicked actions of the criminal few - then there
will be more understanding.

And of course then all will be concerned with "Tolerance! Tolerance!" :rotfl2:

:woot:

[Catfish]

One problem is that people are sick and tired of hearing all this again, they just want to go on with their life, only they do now live under different conditions.

Sick and tired, or just being lazy ?

Obviously a lot is being swept under the carpet for "patriotic" reasons, blind faith and obedience hurrying ahead. But at the same time the US people and generally the "western" world lets itself terrorize by those who say that "terrorists" are everywhere and worldwide, let themselves be threatened with "danger levels" (sic!) going up and down, from green to red, and generally cause an atmosphere of fear and unrest. This is done to have a pretext to

1. diminish rights and strangle freedom of speech and expression, and allow reprisals of all kinds for a "higher cause" (now didn't we have that in history for a hundred times)

2. have a reason to invade and outsource other countries, as a justification for the own people, but also against other Superpowers. According to a german leaked accountant's opinion paper by the BND in Pullach the war on resources and economical hegemony is in effect, the scenario fitting to a hundred percent. Another german Bundeswehr (army) peak oil analysis in an own accountant's opinion paper comes to the same conclusion.


What happened ?

19 "islamists" armed with carpet knives hijack four Boeings at september 11th 2001, and cause a traumatic terror strike.

Instantly some Osama Bin Laden, the former resistance fighter against Russia in Afghanistan in US service, back then a friend of the US and being helped with money and weapons, is being suspected along with "HIS NETWORK". By whom ? The "US", but by which organization, or advisor pool ?

Up to then, if there was a terror "movement", its name was not "Al Quaida", since Al Quaida was up to then just the name of a CIA database file, containing names of people fighting the russians in Afghanistan (most of them of islamic belief), and information on how to use and influence (exploit) them.
This file was even known and used by the very people who bore the names on that list, to contact each other and report to the CIA and own internal sub-organisations. They even have eMail lists of each other and CIA members to contact.
Even though, the conspiracy theory of those people being responsible, is still officially in effect after ten years.

In spite of some of the suspects being caught and interrogated, they have never been convicted.
The main suspect Osama Bin Laden has now been declared dead, after ten years and a killer deployment.
As the FBI states Osama Bin Laden was NOT sought for because of 9/11. While the official report has been proven to be unsustainable, the official conspiracy theory is still in effect, only it is being called a "non conspiracy theory".


George Bush has managed to denounce all upcoming doubts as conspiracy theories, while the official one is the least believable.
But even Bush does not claim 9/11 to have been a one-man action. The idea of Islam as a concept, of something that evokes feelings of hatred and fear has brought forward the readiness for war.

Supported by terroristic acts in Madrid and London, the foe image of Islam is now well established - only those "assassinations" were staged. Some of the people in charge seem to have become wet feet, the London doors to the Underground station were shut before the bomb exploded, the station personnel in Spain was warned of an "exercise" taking place, their rection and shock when they realized a real bomb then exploded can still be found as an audio file on the net. As they say the old CIA european concept of "GLADIO" and state- (or state-own/internal) terrorism seems to have entered a new dimension, after the fall of the USSR.


The publishing in the media regarding terrorism has led to a shift of attention and alertness, as can be seen by the over-hastily reactions of the media, after the Norway assassination.
http://www.slate.com/id/2299967/
While the "islamistic terror" contradicts any statistics, it has been established as the number one foe image. Afghanistan was the first objective of the new war "after".

Apart from individual laziness and "get on with life" a lot of media refrain from posing critical questions. Official statements on "the war on terrorism" are just being repeated, as well as the justification of the "need" to confine individual human rights for the cause against terrorism.

It should have been the classical task of the media to pose questions, to question the only allowed official version of what has happened, and not abetting power politics. Especially regarding the untenable pretension in the official report of what physically happened.
While we know where Fox News stands, the rest of the media have failed.

Greetings,
Catfish

[Tribesman]

Sick and tired, or just being lazy ?

Read your crap and read your links:yep:
your own link shoots your crap out the water by 12 years.

truthers:doh:

[Catfish]

Read your crap and read your links:yep:
your own link shoots your crap out the water by 12 years.


By 12 years ? If you don't read the links you don't need to post.
Ah you didn't even read the posts .. :O:

[the_tyrant]

When we finally get yuri, we shall win!

[Tribesman]

By 12 years
Yes by twelve years, read your own links and then see how much they contradict the crap you wrote.


If you don't read the links you don't need to post.

So why are you posting then?

Ah you didn't even read the posts
You demostrably didn't which is why it makes your silly conspiracy nonsense even more nonsensical.

[MH]

By 12 years ? If you don't read the links you don't need to post.
Ah you didn't even read the posts .. :O:

Its all reversed engineered bull.
How come mighty USA screwed up so badly.
It could be done only on purpose no other way.
All screw ups are cover ups because in reality it would be impossible for few bearded Muslims camel riders idiots to pull up such clever plan.
Right....
The only cover up might be the above attitude in American intelligence service at That time.

[Onkel Neal]

If this is a war, it'll be a war that will never end.

See also War on Drugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs).

And the war on crime. Yes, it will never end, but it must be fought and it can be successful.

[Growler]

And the war on crime. Yes, it will never end, but it must be fought and it can be successful.

Concur, as I stated earlier - if we don't fight, there is a 100% chance of not winning.

[Tribesman]

Concur, as I stated earlier - if we don't fight, there is a 100% chance of not winning.
Not quite, as a follow on from....... "it is better to do "something" if it gives a positive result, if the "something" has a negative result you would be better doing nothing.".....it also works that the terrorists can defeat themselves.
Not that I would suggest relying on the nuts to do it in a short enough time scale

[Growler]

Not quite, as a follow on from....... "it is better to do "something" if it gives a positive result, if the "something" has a negative result you would be better doing nothing.".....it also works that the terrorists can defeat themselves.
Not that I would suggest relying on the nuts to do it in a short enough time scale

True, in many respects, and I agree on the latter part - letting the one-delta-ten-tangos do themselves in is a rather long, slow road, and one which permits great harm to be done to you as well. I would rather see deliberate and planned action rather than o'erhasty reaction - on that point, we agree.