French Magazine Attacked by Terrorists

[Argus]

No it isnt. Not even close. Most western involvement in the middle east has been completely centered around economic interests... even if you go back as far as the Barbary wars.

Defending our economic interests is still defensive.

It's not like we're stealing their resources, either. We're paying outrageously for the oil. All we want to ensure is that they don't use it as a weapon against us.

[Argus]

Its nice that you want to help, but when all your ideas on how to help are stupid and dont work, and everything you try fails and hurts the people you are trying to help, and puts your OWN citizens at risk, and wastes THEIR money, blood, and resources, at some point you have to realize that the best way to help is to stop helping.

Seems to me that OPEC had the top hand at one point, drastically raising oil prices and blackmailing western countries to get its way. You really think it all fell apart on its own? I'm not talking about the current oil price collapse either. The west, mainly the US, has been able to hugely influence and downgrade OPECs power since the oil embargo, and part of that was setting OPEC countries against each other.

There never was another embargo, and western countries went on freely importing oil.

I mean think about it... We overthrow a democratically elected leader in Iran, and put a patsy in charge. When the people there decide to depose him,

First, it worked well for almost forty years. That's no small accomplishment. The US and west got a firm supporter who refused to make war on Israel and was set on modernization of his country. Those, btw, were largely his undoing. It wasn't 'the people' so much as 'the clerics' who were his undoing. They despised his modernization programs, and his ambitions to make Iran into a secular powerhouse. They also hated his peace treaty with Israel.

Carter encouraged him to leave to avoid bloodshed. In retrospect, maybe he could have stayed in power if he'd killed enough enemies. It's not like his successors improved human rights there one iota, after all.

then we back Saddam Husseign in two bloody unprovoked invasions, and look the other way while he massacres his own people and hundreds of thousands of Iranians.

The Iranians were the West's enemies. Iraq wasn't exactly a friend either. Having them killing each other was a rather neat trick though I'm not really sure how much we contributed to that.

Then we decide to turn on Hussein, and we put Iranian backed Shia in charge,

The mistake the Americans made in Iraq is the same mistake they made in Afghanistan, which was trying to impose their own system of government on a foreign and unwelcome soil. They should have put a strong-man in place and forgotten about their silly democracy plans.

and arm rebels against the Allawite regime in Syria resulting in ISIS...

It's more a matter of we failed to arm the rebels, while various Middle Eastern regimes provided arms and money to ISIS, resulting in them absorbing or destroying most of the other rebel groups. It's also not our fault that Suunis and Shias don't want to live together. For decades the minority Suunis ruled Iraq's majority shias with an iron fist. Why wouldn't the reverse be the most obvious case, whether we interfered or not?

[GostHacked]

We haven't done anything offensive in more than half a century. If we were going to be offensive we'd take their oil away from them.

Paternalistic liberal bigotry.

What do you think the war in Iraq was about? Cabbage?

[Wilber]

George Bush had to react to 9/11 in some manner. The West knew that Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. He chose to do something really stupid as an excuse to attack Afghanistan and kill a whole bunch more Americans than were killed in 9/11.

His successor found out that Bin Laden was living in Pakistan. Did he attack Pakistan - No! He sent in a team and took him out. That was an illegal act that ignored Pakistan sovereignty that was quickly forgotten.

I wonder how the world would be to-day if Bush had not gone into Iraq for that oil fictitious weapons of mass destruction and used the Navy Seals to extract Bib Laden from Afghanistan.

I am surprised that so many posters feel that we had no choice but to invade some countries in the Middle East.

I think the invasion of Iraq was one of the biggest presidential blunders in history, however 9/11 was planned and intiated from Afghaniistan by Bin Laden and Al Queda. 9/11 was an act of war and the US was justified in going after him no matter who was protecting him.

[Big Guy]

Wilber - If 9/11 was an act of war then an act of war by whom?

If I remember correctly, the USA demanded that Afghanistan (Taliban) turn Bin Laden and his group over to them. Many people following the history feel that they did not have the capacity to do that.

And, the Taliban were prepared to turn Bin Laden over to a third party, another Arab country - i.e. get him out of Afghanistan but Bush refused and attacked as negotiations were still taking place. Do you really think that the USA did not have the capacity to send in their special teams and take Bin Laden out? The Taliban did not have nor do they have any association with Al Qaeda.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Big Guy

[Wilber]

Wilber - If 9/11 was an act of war then an act of war by whom?

If I remember correctly, the USA demanded that Afghanistan (Taliban) turn Bin Laden and his group over to them. Many people following the history feel that they did not have the capacity to do that.

And, the Taliban were prepared to turn Bin Laden over to a third party, another Arab country - i.e. get him out of Afghanistan but Bush refused and attacked as negotiations were still taking place. Do you really think that the USA did not have the capacity to send in their special teams and take Bin Laden out? The Taliban did not have nor do they have any association with Al Qaeda.

It took the US years to find Bin Ladin even after they had invaded Afghanistan.

[dre]

I think the invasion of Iraq was one of the biggest presidential blunders in history, however 9/11 was planned and intiated from Afghaniistan by Bin Laden and Al Queda. 9/11 was an act of war and the US was justified in going after him no matter who was protecting him.

So when Binladen was hiding in Pakistan and planning more attacks from there maybe the US would have been justified in a full scale invasion and nation building project.

The thing is, regardless of the justification provided it would have been stupid.

The US and others played right into the hands of these terrorists. Alqeada, with an attack that cost a few million dollars tricked western powers into getting involved in two massively expensive nation building projects, and spending somewhere around 4-5 TRILLION dollars on a "Global War On Terror" that has dramatically increased the threat of terrorism, and the number of terrorists.

Whether something is justified, and whether its smart are not the same thing. The GWOT and the reaction of western powers to 911 is one of the most damaging and destructive things we have ever done to ourselves. An EPIC failure by ANY objective measure.

[eyeball]

It took the US years to find Bin Ladin even after they had invaded Afghanistan.

Yes well, as has been pointed out, America really sucks at getting anything right when it comes to making war against terror. It has been completely outclassed at every turn and twist since day one.

Edited January 23, 2015 by eyeball

[dre]

It took the US years to find Bin Ladin even after they had invaded Afghanistan.

Thats because for the most part they didnt even try to find him. The president at the time said flat out "I dont care about BinLaden". 911 was an excuse that allowed the government at the time to take a shot at implementing a plan to remake the middle east and elevate Americas role in Gulf security, that they had already been working on for years. It had very little to do with 911 except that 911 except that it provided an excuse and made western people fear-dumb enough to support/allow it.

[Wilber]

So when Binladen was hiding in Pakistan and planning more attacks from there maybe the US would have been justified in a full scale invasion and nation building project.

The thing is, regardless of the justification provided it would have been stupid.

The US and others played right into the hands of these terrorists. Alqeada, with an attack that cost a few million dollars tricked western powers into getting involved in two massively expensive nation building projects, and spending somewhere around 4-5 TRILLION dollars on a "Global War On Terror" that has dramatically increased the threat of terrorism, and the number of terrorists.

Whether something is justified, and whether its smart are not the same thing. The GWOT and the reaction of western powers to 911 is one of the most damaging and destructive things we have ever done to ourselves. An EPIC failure by ANY objective measure.

The families of those killed in 9/11 will be gratified to know it was just a "trick".

[dre]

The families of those killed in 9/11 will be gratified to know it was just a "trick".

Cool story, but I never said it was a "trick". Those type of events are political opprotunities, and the government made full use of it to do things it already had planned to do before. "Never let a good crisis go to waste" they say.

911 is an excellent example of this... Paul Hindenburg passing an emergency decree that suspended the civil liberties of German citizens in response to the Reichstag fire is another (that one lead to the rise of the Nazis). There are many others though.

Its doesnt necessarily mean anyone was "tricked". But these events galvanize the population and provide sitting governments with a huge ammount of political capital which they then use to do the things they want to do.

[Big Guy]

When two adversaries are in conflict, the idea is to get the upper hand in some manner. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had no real military, very few followers and not so much money. All he had was a potential to organize disgruntled and angry people into a guerilla war. His adversary, the USA, had the strongest and biggest military in the world, all the money it needed, 300 million citizens supporting their government and the arrogance of becoming the new policeman of the world.

So Bin Laden finds 20 guys who are really, really pi$$ed at what the Americans were doing in the world and were ready to die for their beliefs. So these guys take American airplanes and run them into the towers in NY and the symbol of American power - the Pentagon. They take out about 3,000 innocent Americans (and a few from other countries) who represented American power - money and military power. That is fact. Now why they did so is conjecture. My personal view is that they knew exactly what the American response would be. The USA was upset and wanted revenge and was prepared to do anything that would show the rest of the world that it was still in control. Al Qaeda stuck its finger right into the eye of the American Eagle and it reacted by attacking while still partially blinded, flew across the ocean and started killing anything and everything that looked like Al Qaeda.

I believe that to be exactly what Bin Laden expected. The West has never been known for a "measured" response so it was guaranteed that hundreds of thousands (and soon millions) of Arabs would be coerced into Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations - and he was absolutely correct. He must still be cackling in that shroud at the bottom of the ocean.

I can see no other reason that Bib Laden ordered what he did. Could he have thought that the attack on 9/11 would intimidate the USA? Would it cause the Americans to ponder why so many people in the Middle East hated them and do something about it? I doubt it. I think he knew what the USA reaction would be and the long term consequences for the West by that not very measured invasion of another country - and then another - and then ....

When a guy with a few million dollars and a few other guys who are ready to die to attain a goal can create the chaos in the world to-day with that attack on 9/11 then I think we should sit back and take a closer look at what we are doing.

Personally, I see nothing that we have learned since we are doing the same as Bush did with his invasions. Why would we get a better result if we are doing the same thing.

For me it is a study in arrogant stupidity and I will probably not live long enough to see the long term pain for Canadians. I do know of a family of a Canadian killed in Afghanistan who are starting to wonder what this was all about. That is a pain I do not have to go through.

Oh dear, I got too much into this and shall probably rue the length of this opinion.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Big Guy

[WIP]

So, in other words, you do not understand satire.

It's ridiculous to point fingers at the so called right in France as being the ones who use the welfare queen abusive labels, when they present the same damn thing in their cartoons! They made a flimsy excuse of using satire and criticizing religion, to heap the same abuses on African immigrants. It's sort of like the shit Bill Maher does on a weekly basis! Throw in a few tropes to make Democrats happy, and load up the show with Neocon horseshit.

[msj]

Um, WIP, we have already established that you do not seem to understand satire.

No point for you to demonstrate, without a doubt, that you really do not understand how it works, at all.

Have you every watched The Stephen Colbert Report?

Did you think he really belonged on the Fox News Network rather than Comedy Central because he was clearly a neocon?

Edited January 23, 2015 by msj

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes well, as has been pointed out, America really sucks at getting anything right when it comes to making war against terror. It has been completely outclassed at every turn and twist since day one.

Well, we knew where the Millennium Bomber came from....maybe should have bombed and invaded Canada too ?

[On Guard for Thee]

Well, we knew where the Millennium Bomber came from....maybe should have bombed and invaded Canada too ?

Make sure you wait to do that until you have a fleet of F 35's. Then we'll use our ageing 18's and kick your ass.

[dre]

So Bin Laden finds 20 guys who are really, really pi$$ed at what the Americans were doing in the world and were ready to die for their beliefs. So these guys take American airplanes and run them into the towers in NY and the symbol of American power - the Pentagon. They take out about 3,000 innocent Americans (and a few from other countries) who represented American power - money and military power. That is fact. Now why they did so is conjecture. My personal view is that they knew exactly what the American response would be. The USA was upset and wanted revenge and was prepared to do anything that would show the rest of the world that it was still in control. Al Qaeda stuck its finger right into the eye of the American Eagle and it reacted by attacking while still partially blinded, flew across the ocean and started killing anything and everything that looked like Al Qaeda.

I believe that to be exactly what Bin Laden expected.

Of course it was! He calls the plan "Bleed Until Bankruptcy".

``The mujahedeen recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the bleed-until-bankruptcy plan -- with Allah's permission,'' bin Laden said in the video that aired on the Qatar-based satellite network

``every dollar of al-Qaeda defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.''

``All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies,'' bin Laden said

The third quote is interest especially because he makes a reference to private US companies, all the profiteering and how they looted American taxpayers.

It was BAIT. And a government of half-wits swallowed it whole, got tens of thousands of Americans killed or permanently maimed, wasted trillions of dollars, and inadvertantly provided a massive ammount of material aid to the terrorists and dramatically increased the number of them and the threat they pose.

OOPS!

Edited January 23, 2015 by dre

[eyeball]

Yep, 9/11 was the most spectacularly successful mission in the history of warfare bar none.

Edited January 23, 2015 by eyeball

[Wilber]

Yep, 9/11 was the most spectacularly successful mission in the history of warfare bar none.

So you agree it was an act of war and should be treated as such.

[eyeball]

Off couse it was an act of war.

Why do you think I maintain Omar Khadr was an illegally indoctrinated child soldier who's had war crimes committed against him?

[Rue]

^{The law does not define warfare as Eyeball does precisely so that it can distinguish other acts of violence or terror from warfare.}

^{The law governing war, referred to as the "law of war" is the legal term for the sub-category under public international law regarding acceptable justifications to engage in war (referred to as jus ad bellum) as well as the limits to acceptable wartime conduct (jus in bello or International humanitarian law).}

^{So these laws will address such topics as what constitutes a proper or actual declaration of war, acceptance of surrender orthe treatment of prisoners of warm what is military necessity (acceptable force) and whether certain weapons should be prohibited.}

^{The terrorists who attacked during 9-11 do not consider themselves bound by any law of war. They are not part of a sovereign state's armed forces. They do not represent a sovereign state, they represent themselves, civilians who act outside and above any law.}

^{The law of war is then defined in conventions signed between sovereign nations.}

^{Now its interesting because in the Muslim religion the Koran states pursuant to Sura Al-Baqara 2:190-193 that Muslim law requires that in combat, Muslims are only allowed to strike back in self-defence against those who strike against them, but, on the other hand, once the enemies cease to attack, Muslims are then commanded to stop attacking.}

^{Clearly no one who was attacked by the 9-11 terrorists who claimed to do so pursuant to Allah's wishes, had first attacked the terrorists so the Koran would not consider what the terrorists did an act of war.}

^{One thing is clear, the method in which Eye defines war and includes terrorism as an act of war is simply his subjective opinion and of course he tries to equate them as being the same.}

^{I would suggest to better understand the distinction betwen war and terror and not just lump them together one take the time to find out the difference and they might for example refer to this site which discusses the difference in relation to the 9-11 attack:}

^{http://www.academia.edu/2763394/The_Immorality_of_Terrorism_A_comparative_analysis_of_Terrorism_vs._War}

^{War is defined as hostility between two states and if those states signed the Geneva Convention they conduct their war according to that convention.}

^{War is engaged in by armed forces in uniforms and they are governed by rules of conduct when they interact with opposing soldiers as well as civilians.}

^{Terrorism is carried out by persons who do not subscribe to any laws let alone treaties. They do not feel bound by any convention or code of behaviour. They do not wear visible uniforms.}

^{They do not place opposing soldiers in prisoner of war camps they simply torture and kill them.}

^{Soldiers at war are to accept terms of surrender and are governed by laws as to hwo to interogate.}

^{None of that applies to terrorists.}

^{Soldiers in conventional war have ranks and roles, terrorists do not.}

^{Now of course on this forum and many others those who support the goals of terrorists will call them freedom fighters or say they engage in war to equate them to soldiers and warriors.}

^{For most of us we do not equate soldiers to terrorists because soldiers wear uniforms, follow a code of behaviour, and follow the very laws terrorists are dedicated in destroying.}

^{Terrorists necessarily engage in what they do to frighten, soldiers do not.}

^{Today the word war, insurgency, guerilla war, terrorism, freedom fighting are all thrown out to mean the same thing by persons who have no awareness of what the law of war is nor would they care if you tried to tell them.}

^{For me I thing the word terrorist is inaccurate. I use the word coward.}

^{Now its interesting because Eye referred to Omar Kadr as a child soldier and not terrorist. He was not a member of any armed forces. He was not representating any foreign state. He was in fact a civilian engaging in crimes against the sovereign state of Afghanistan in the name of his father's Muslim extremist terror cell.}

^{Eye of course wants a double standard for terrorists. He wants them to be able to refuse to follow any law of any country and to believe they can enter countries and engage in crimes against humanity in the name of a particular Muslim extremist view like Kadr, and be required to follow the Geneva War convention or any other convention soldiers must follow because they represent their sovereign states who signed those conventions, but on the other hand when they are caught to be treated as if they are soldiers.}

^{So in other words, only once caught, they should be afforded the definition and privileges of protection or legal rights that come with a soldier, if not caught they should not have to follow the same conventions that give those rights.}

^{So you see Mr. Kadr and his lot, they get to pick and chose when to use the law they urinate on and are dedicted to destroying for their benefit once caught.}

^{Yah we all get the double standard and that is why some of us do not think Kadr was a soldier, just a terrorist who got caught and only once caught now demands the very laws he pissed on to coddle him.}

^{His mother after he was arrested sat in her house on Canadian welfare calling Canada an infidel nation. Kadr himself stated he has no regrets and would do what he did again.}

^{Soldier-he's a coward a coward who got caught and spits on the very country he demands protect it.}

^{As far as I am concerned he should have been left in Afghanistan. He broke Afghanistan laws, he should have been turned over to their police. He was no soldier, he was a criminal and remains a criminal as well as a Muslim extremist terrorist who believes his Muslim religion justifies his actions.}

^{To equate him and put him on the same moral level as a Canadian soldier is a crock.}

Edited January 23, 2015 by Rue

[eyeball]

So what say you Wilbur, you backpedaling from inferring that 9/11 was an act of war?

I'm quite prepared to entertain arguments that it was a civilian crime and that ishould have been treated as such, you know, with police a justice system and a legal process.

Your call.

[Rue]

How much planning is involved by Al Quaeda remains in doubt. Some argue it was extensive and well trained-others will argue they did very little if anything just take credit and let these idiots act on their own.

Al Quaeda has general training areas in Yemen for terrorists but then whether they send them out with autonomy to plan their own attacks or stay in direct contact directing them is another. I tend to think the latter is not happening just the former so that its harder to stop them.

Centralized or directed attacks require a communication line that in this day and age can be monitored.

I personally think what we see is a new tactic, train them generally in hatred, Muslim extremism and how to use weapons, then send them out on their own to do what they want. This way if they are caught they have nothing really to reveal other than their immediate cell.

The formula I am suggesting is not different than the Algerian cells who fought France. Each was on a need to know basis and only carried out a narrow rigid set of commands not attached to anything else so that if terrorists were caught, no amount of torture would give way the network.

I think its a modification of that system using unstable people.

You don't see at this time highly educated people involved in the attacks, so far its marginalized people. There is a reason for that. The less formal education, the less sophisticated the planning and attack and that may be a far more potent tactic than overkill, overanalysis and trying to engage in elaborate attacks requiring academic skills and training.

That said I think two tactics will continue-one from marginalized people either "inspired by" or indirectly assisted by terrorists, and the other more elaborate. For all we know the series of sporadic attacks is to take attention away from a large ellaborate one coming.

Counter intelligence is like looking for a needle in a hay stack.

I think additional attacks in France, Britain, Germany, Belgium Holland perhaps, Denmark, Spain, are likely.

I also think China anticipates increased Muslim uprisings in some of its states and I think Russia is vulnerable to anther attack in Chechnya.

A war on the ground spreading past Syria and Iraq into Yemen and Jordan and/or Sudan, Libya, Chad, Niger, Nigeria, all are possibilities.

One thing is clear, Nigeria with a huge population has lost control of its state and its Christians are absolutely exposed to Muslim extremists to the point there is no state protection, none. This is the recipe for a civil war.

I stated the above before the random attack on Jews in Tel Aviv two days ago and the collapse of Yemen yesterday.

The latest terrorist attack in Tel Aviv shows the new trend of attack which is not done at the large scale 9-11 was. I think that is because terrorists have had to readapt their m.o.

I also believe the Snowden leaks have empowered terrorists as intelligence agencies have to deal with the damage from the leaks which have compromised many of their counter terrorist operations.

As we come closer to the Israeli election there will be more terror attacks in Israel which will only serve to empower the right wing of Israel and once again these idiots will alienate and shut out the very people from the Israeli political process they would be more likely to make peace with them.

Ironically wll these terrorist attacks will do is assure a Republican in the White House, Netanyahu's re-election, and even more hatred against the Muslim world for its perceived failure to control its extremists.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Rue

[WIP]

Um, WIP, we have already established that you do not seem to understand satire.

Yes I do! But most comedians understand that they can easily cross over a line if they do edgy political humor.....rape jokes for example...may be an attempt to critique men who are too self-absorbed to understand the distinction between consent and no consent, but it still isn't funny to make light of the subject, because of the damage that it does in some people's lives.

In the Hebdo case, they were trying to hide behind satire of the growing fascist white supremacist movements, but nevertheless, they drew a caricature of abducted girls as ugly, dark, pregnant monsters. It was their cartoon....not the creation of the nazis! Any women of African ancestry would have noticed these features of their satire.

Have you every watched The Stephen Colbert Report?

Yes, and the closest he came to crossing the line was that ching chong character that was supposed to be a satire of right wing condescension...but gave Fox the opportunity to seize the moment and call him a racist

[WIP]

Seems to me that OPEC had the top hand at one point, drastically raising oil prices and blackmailing western countries to get its way. You really think it all fell apart on its own?

Sure you're talking about OPEC? Sounds like Alberta!

First, it worked well for almost forty years. That's no small accomplishment. The US and west got a firm supporter who refused to make war on Israel and was set on modernization of his country.

Alberta again? Cause it sure as hell isn't Saudi Arabia or the Gulf sheikdoms!

I can't help noticing that the rest of your history lesson seems to omit a number of crucial facts:

the oil is under their lands...so shouldn't they have the sovereign right to decide how much to produce and who to sell it to? But, as soon as the colonial era ended, the neocolonial era began using puppet dictators like the Saud and other instant royals...like the Shah of Iran. If western leaders never expected blowback in any shape, way or form, then that was their own stupidity which led to many of today's ongoing conflicts.