War on Terrorisom has been won! Kind of.

[GostHacked]

Here try this article at BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4897786.stm

Now the US military is revealing details of how it is planning to fight this very different type of war.

It is also preparing the public for a global conflict which it believes will dominate the next 20 years.

The nerve centre of this war against terror is the huge MacDill airbase in Tampa, Florida.

But inside US Central Command (Centcom) generals are planning what they call "fourth-generational warfare".

Centcom is already responsible for operations in the Middle East, South Asia and Africa - as well as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - and now it is planning a campaign that will eventually span the globe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1710062,00.html

The Pentagon must become adept at working with interior ministries as well as defence ministries, the report says. It describes this as "a substantial shift in emphasis that demands broader and more flexible legal authorities and cooperative mechanisms ... Bringing all the elements of US power to bear to win the long war requires overhauling traditional foreign assistance and export control activities and laws.

And can anyone explain to me what this means?

To wage the long war, the report urges Congress to grant the Pentagon and its agencies expanded permanent legal authority of the kind used in Iraq, which may give US commanders greatly extended powers.

Here is an interesting opinion peice.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/02/0...ns_long_war.php

Officially, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld calls it “The Long War,” a propaganda term designed to echo “the Cold War,” and the Pentagon intends to brainwash Americans into supporting a generation-long struggle that will lay the groundwork for an American hegemony in the 21st century. It is, indeed, the Project for a New American Century.

The US plans to expand is power and dominance. But saying they must protect us all from other terrorist organizations. So they must get small 'Delta Forces' established and then go into countries to do small percise operations. This does not seem to end with Iraq .... the US has plans for the future. Well for the next 20 years anyways. I also think the military is playing catch up in its restructuring. Only 5 years after 9/11 do they realize they need to change their strategy when it comes to terrorism. You think that would have been in the works the day after 9/11.

Almost sounds like the Cold War Part II.

[KrustyKidd]

This does not seem to end with Iraq .... the US has plans for the future. Well for the next 20 years anyways.

I'll bet fifty at least. Al Queda's rise is not coincidental, it's been brewing for eight hundred years. It's a political/religious and military movement with a core belief of their way or the highway. Very deep rooted in Muslim phsyce in one way or another.

To an impovershed person without hope of a future, it is an ideal alternative if you have a religious disposition, hence, it cannot be fought simply by wiping out the 'wack a moles' when they come out, the base conditions also have to wiped out. Which is a quandry as in order to do that, you have to change the backwards political systems that cannot cope with the 21st cnetury. All the while they are trying to destroy what there is of it already.

And can anyone explain to me what this means?

Ya. Means they cannot work only with foreign affairs and other militarys. They have to be more involved in the inner workings of the governments of the places they are in and, civillian workings at home. Quite the shift from the Patton type of operations they used to prepare for.

You think that would have been in the works the day after 9/11.

The US military is a large organization. And, large entities don't turn on a dime.

An interesting note is that the US would be happier simply doing what they do best and investing and getting returns and profits for those investments while benifitting the places they invested in. Here, as in many cases, they have invested and now try to protect those investments and, those whom they supported so they do not fall to this new threat. However, as they go about protecting their investments, they create new investments. A fact definitely not lost on the great powers such as France, Germany, Russia and China as they see the US grow more influencial and themselves more redundent. It's a Catch 22 in that they are willing to take on this threat and feel it necessary for the safeguarding of freedom but in order to do so, they have to create more vulnerable assets. Along with the mistaken or possibly not mistaken intent of creating more hedgemoney and resentment around the world towards them.

A valid example is 1979 prior to the Soviet Invasion of Afganistan. The US, by it's support for various countries and Nato alliances virtually surrounded the USSR from the North, West and South. In the Middle East, they surrounded Saoudi Arabia with fleets, bases and allies in half a dozen countries. Unintentional hegemony. But, hegmoney none the less as the countries of the region knew who they wanted to be an ally of when the chips were down.

[lost&outofcontrol]

I'll bet fifty at least. Al Queda's rise is not coincidental, it's been brewing for eight hundred years. It's a political/religious and military movement with a core belief of their way or the highway. Very deep rooted in Muslim phsyce in one way or another.

And they wouldn't be a "problem" if the US hadn't trained and financed them until 1998/99. link and one more.

I'll make you a deal, if you read AMERICA'S "WAR ON TERRORISM"by Michel Chossudovsky and still hold on to the same beliefs, I'll never argue with you again, scouts honour. You'll understand why the soviets were left with no other options but to invade Afghanistan and why they did it.

[KrustyKidd]

And they wouldn't be a "problem" if the US hadn't trained and financed them until 1998/99. link and one more.

Two dimensional thinking and totally ignores the foundatinal reasons why Al Queda exists. Al Queda or, a movement with the same core rationale, belif and mission would have come forth under another name or leader at some point. The above was only the manifestatin it appeared in, not the reason.

[lost&outofcontrol]

And they wouldn't be a "problem" if the US hadn't trained and financed them until 1998/99. link and one more.

Two dimensional thinking and totally ignores the foundatinal reasons why Al Queda exists. Al Queda or, a movement with the same core rationale, belif and mission would have come forth under another name or leader at some point. The above was only the manifestatin it appeared in, not the reason.

But my isn't that a double standard? It OK for us to fund a terrorist organization to fight and overthrow our "enemies" but it's wrong for this same terrorist organization to do the same to us?

[KrustyKidd]

They didn't become a terroist organization or an organization for that matter until they were marrooned in Afganistan by their own governments after the war. Battle hardened intellectuals who were given passage to Afganistan to fight the infidel by totolatarioan regimes that were glad to be rid of these hotheads for their rablle rousing beliefs and behaviors at home were not welcomed back. Their passports mysteriously vanished in Pakestan along with help from the CIA and others at the request of the goverments.

All in the same place, hardened intellectual Wahhabist warriors wondering why they were betrayed. The reason? Easy, their governmnents were weak and aposphates. Tools of the infidels and so, they formed a plan to clean out the infestatin of unbelievers that ran Islamic countries, recapture the Caliphate, the one time in history when Islam was a power to be rec oned with and so began the rise of the Base.

It would have happened in another way. I think I explained before. The US is not the target, the entire former Caliphate is. The US is oly a tool, if not for them, it would have been somebody else as for eight hundred years, the Middle East has been under the boot of one hegemon or another. As I observed, even the Dutch had their day there.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Krusty Kid,

An interesting note is that the US would be happier simply doing what they do best and investing and getting returns and profits for those investments while benifitting the places they invested in.

This is what got them in the bad books with Osama in the first place. Not to mention those in the west that dislike the US funding and supporting dictatorial/and or 'religious fanatic regimes solely for money's sake.

[lost&outofcontrol]

They didn't become a terroist organization or an organization for that matter until they were marrooned in Afganistan by their own governments after the war.

The Taliban was opposed to the to the Afghan .gov and toppled it in '96 with the help of the ISI and CIA. They carried out suicide bombing and the killing of civilians during the Soviet war. So they were terrorist then and they are terrorist now. They only thing that has changed is their intended target. So again, it's hypocritical to say we went in Afghanistan because they supported terrorism when infact we supported terrorism since 1979 (and we still do). The end doesn't justify the means.

The US is oly a tool, if not for them..

Funny I think it's the other way around like it was during soviet occupation.

We need an enemy to justify an illegal war.

[KrustyKidd]

The Taliban was opposed to the to the Afghan .gov and toppled it in '96 with the help of the ISI and CIA. They carried out suicide bombing and the killing of civilians during the Soviet war. So they were terrorist then and they are terrorist now. They only thing that has changed is their intended target. So again, it's hypocritical to say we went in Afghanistan because they supported terrorism when infact we supported terrorism since 1979 (and we still do). The end doesn't justify the means.

92 actually. Then civil war between the Warlords with the Mujahedin and Taliban taking control eventually in 96. The Taliban were not deemed terrorists then nor are they now however, they did support terrorism and, were bombed in 98 by Clinton to reflect that.

Funny I think it's the other way around like it was during soviet occupation.

The fall of the USSR is seen by Al Queda as their victory, not Regans. And, to them and those who would join or follow them, evidence of their power. Confrontation with the US is only a method rather than an endgame.

Al Queda

the ultimate goal of al-Qaeda is to establish a Caliphate across the entire Islamic world and eventually the rest of the world that would replace the United Nations, by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow secular or Western-supported regimes.

We need an enemy to justify an illegal war.

Please address your concerns on the supposed 'illegal war' here.

[GostHacked]

Krusty Kidd.

The US helped The Mujahedeen. That we know is true (Hell even RAMBO knew that one!!)

After the cold war the US needed to adjust their strategy. Since the collapse of the USSR and communism has been defeated (in the views of the US, but if they really won that war, communism would have been wiped off the earth, and we all know that did not happen) they no longer have an 'enemy' to combat. Here is where Al-Queada comes in. That name was given to the group from the US officials. Al-Queada did not come up with the name themselves.

So no real enemy anymore, or better, no easlily identifiable enemy anymore. The US needed to change the strategy to combat a new enemy they which they gave the name too. What good is a large kick ass Military (and how it's funded) if there is no more enemy?

To keep the powers that be IN power, they need a new enemy to combat, or else they would loose control, war would not seem needed and the industrial military complex would get less not more funding (take a look and see how the Military has had increased funding every year since 9/11). So Terrorism was created. A new enemy to present to the US population, to put some fear in them, and to maintain control of things. How do you stay in power under this new premesis of terrorism? How do you 'protect' people from this terrorism? You take away some 'freedoms' (PatriotAct) and you move to more of a police state with the Patriot Act policies and now the NSA Spy Program to keep 'terrorists' in check. Terrorism now can be applied to anything domestic wise. Anything can be classified as 'terrorism' with these articles in place. So it seems hypocritical when you are fighting for FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY abroad (like Afghanistan with the current law of the land being Sharia Law, the same as under the evil Taleban) when you are slowly taking away the rights of the citizens you are sworn to protect.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1710062,00.html

The Pentagon does not pinpoint the countries it sees as future areas of operations but they will stretch beyond the Middle East to the Horn of Africa, north Africa, central and south-east Asia and the northern Caucasus.

The Pentagon must become adept at working with interior ministries as well as defence ministries, the report says. It describes this as "a substantial shift in emphasis that demands broader and more flexible legal authorities and cooperative mechanisms ... Bringing all the elements of US power to bear to win the long war requires overhauling traditional foreign assistance and export control activities and laws."

I find this quite alarming.

[KrustyKidd]

So Terrorism was created.

Yes, invented on September 11, 2001. Prior to that, all suicide bombings were imaginary.

How do you stay in power under this new premesis of terrorism? How do you 'protect' people from this terrorism? You take away some 'freedoms' (PatriotAct) and you move to more of a police state with the Patriot Act policies and now the NSA Spy Program to keep 'terrorists' in check.

Yes like Lincolns law where he imprisoned journalists, banished dissenters and the laws that forced Japanese people into camps. All iin place to this day, not one of them rescinded. The voting over the renewal of the Patriot act was done in a mock up of congress with actors from Broadway who filled in for the officials. It's a great way to increase your power as President - invoke actions that decrease your popularity to really low numbers and then, hold elections every four years just to get the opportunity for a thigh strapping.

The Pentagon does not pinpoint the countries it sees as future areas of operations but they will stretch beyond the Middle East to the Horn of Africa, north Africa, central and south-east Asia and the northern Caucasus.

Hmm, does it look like this map? Coincidence?

The Caliphate

"In 700, the Ommayad Caliphate stretched from Tibet to the Atlantic Ocean. It was the most extensive Empire that the world had yet seen.

I find this quite alarming.

I would too if I thought that terrorism was a figment of the imagination.

[GostHacked]

Krusty Kidd

Yes, invented on September 11, 2001. Prior to that, all suicide bombings were imaginary.

No where did I say that. And to clear it up, terrorism existed before 9/11. I would be a FOOL to think otherwise. I am saying that communism was no more of a threat to the US. So they needed a new enemy.

Terrorism is not a figment of anyones imagination. It is real. But who are the real terrorists? You know that Osama has some close ties with the CIA back in the 80's?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1

NEW YORK, Aug. 24, 1998 — At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback. And the fact that he is viewed as a hero by millions in the Islamic world proves again the old adage: Reap what you sow.

http://www.balkanpeace.org/our/our09.shtml

Furthermore, we must note with tragic irony that the United States trained and financed Islamicist “freedom fighters” during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, to the tune of $10 billion (September 13, 2001, Washington Times). Osama Bin Laden was part and parcel of that military “aid” program.

Yet, it would be willful blindness to suggest that the roots of terror begin and end in Afghanistan or the Middle East. When examining events that have transpired in the Balkans over the past ten years, Osama Bin Laden’s name appears prominently. Bin Laden directly aided the Bosnian Muslims, both financially (weapons procurement) and with training. In addition, that same “aid” was extended to the separatist Albanians of Kosovo and Macedonia. Ironically, the US found Bin Laden and his supporters “convenient” allies when dealing with Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians, again in another so-called struggle for “freedom”.

(ever try makeing a comprehensible post while doing your regular work at the same time? this post took over an hour to make!! hehe)

[KrustyKidd]

No where did I say that. And to clear it up, terrorism existed before 9/11. I would be a FOOL to think otherwise. I am saying that communism was no more of a threat to the US. So they needed a new enemy.

You did though.

So Terrorism was created. A new enemy to present to the US population, to put some fear in them, and to maintain control of things

I understand that you meant that terrorism was not as 'big of a threat' however, the events of 911 and, just as importent, the bombings in many of the weaker Muslim countries of the world all fall into the scheme that is Al Queda's mission. To weaken, then eventually topple those same regimes at the same time, provoking the US to respond in a way that they could use to unite the Muslim world. It's a chipping process, not a frontal attack.

Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback. And the fact that he is viewed as a hero by millions in the Islamic world proves again the old adage: Reap what you sow.

Osama was a radical long before he went to Afganistan. And, if his family was not in tight with the loyalty to the House of Saud, he would have been left to rot there like many of his fellows. There was a secondary reason to send them there and that was they were nutbars and the Afgan war was a great way to give them what they wanted and rid the country of some radicals. Hopefully never to return. You seem to be under the impression that some magical transformation occured in Afganistan. It didn't. These guys were hard core conservatives goiong in and, going out, they were battle hardened hard core conservatives, with or without the USA.

As for saying that anybody could have seen this comming not. They didn't emerge as a movement until they had come out on top of the civil war, a very uncertain event. And only then did they move forward with the next plan.

Furthermore, we must note with tragic irony that the United States trained and financed Islamicist “freedom fighters” during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, to the tune of $10 billion (September 13, 2001, Washington Times). Osama Bin Laden was part and parcel of that military “aid” program.

So was Musharif and he didn't fly planes into buildings. Same with the Kurds, same with the Iranians.

Ironically, the US found Bin Laden and his supporters “convenient” allies when dealing with Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians, again in another so-called struggle for “freedom”.

Just as Stalin was a great guy to beat Hitler with. Radical Islam wasn't a houshold word until 911

When examining events that have transpired in the Balkans over the past ten years, Osama Bin Laden’s name appears prominently. Bin Laden directly aided the Bosnian Muslims, both financially (weapons procurement) and with training. In addition, that same “aid” was extended to the separatist Albanians of Kosovo and Macedonia.

Uh huh. Ferment disorder and then, topple the government and replace with a Muslim one. Standard procedure. The US is a an actor in a play the Wahhabists thought they wrote. However, they are not playing the part as expected.