Futile War vs. Futile War

[Black Dog]

Interesting:

For a week and a half in April 2005, one of the favorite warlords of fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar was sitting in a room at the Embassy Suites Hotel in lower Manhattan, not far from where the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center once stood. But Haji Bashar Noorzai, the burly, bearded leader of one of Afghanistan’s largest and most troublesome tribes, was not on a mission to case New York City for a terrorist attack. On the contrary, Noorzai, a confidant of the fugitive Taliban overlord, who is a well-known ally of Osama bin Laden’s, says he had been invited to Manhattan to prove that he could be of value in America’s war on terrorism. “I did not want to be considered an enemy of the United States,” Noorzai told TIME. “I wanted to help the Americans and to help the new government in Afghanistan.”

For several days he hunkered down in that hotel room and was bombarded with questions by U.S. government agents. What was going on in the war in Afghanistan? Where was Mullah Omar? Where was bin Laden? What was the state of opium and heroin production in the tribal lands Noorzai commanded–the very region of Afghanistan where support for the Taliban remains strongest? Noorzai believed he had answered everything to the agents’ satisfaction, that he had convinced them that he could help counter the Taliban’s resurgent influence in his home province and that he could be an asset to the U.S.

He was wrong.

As he got up to leave, ready to be escorted to the airport to catch a flight back to Pakistan, one of the agents in the room told him he wasn’t going anywhere. That agent, who worked for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), told him that a grand jury had issued a sealed indictment against Noorzai 3 1/2 months earlier and that he was now under arrest for conspiring to smuggle narcotics into the U.S. from Afghanistan. An awkward silence ensued as the words were translated into his native Pashtu. “I did not believe it,” Noorzai later told TIME from his prison cell. “I thought they were joking.” The previous August, an American agent he had met with said the trip to the U.S. would be “like a vacation.”

[…]

Noorzai was also a powerful leader of a million-member tribe who had offered to help bring stability to a region that is spinning out of control. Because he is in a jail cell, he is not feeding the U.S. and the Afghan governments information; he is not cajoling his tribe to abandon the Taliban and pursue political reconciliation; he is not reaching out to his remaining contacts in the Taliban to push them to cease their struggle. And he is hardly in a position to help persuade his followers to abandon opium production, when the amount of land devoted to growing poppies has risen 60%.

The blogger goes on t o comment:

The administration makes claims that the war on terror is an existential struggle that requires extraordinary actions, including a number of highly questionable domestic surveillance programs and “coercive” interrogation of possible terrorists as well as potentially their life-time incarceration; however, we can’t recognize the imperfect nature of potential allies such as Noorzai? We prefer a drug arrest to progress in a central front on the war against radical Islam?

Like Bush's war cry ("Go shopping!") stories like this indicate that the very authours of the war on terror aren't taking it particularily seriously. So, my question is: are hey misleading us about the threat of terrorism or are they just incompetent morons who couldn't find their ass in the dark with both hands and a flashlight? I'm not usre which idea is more frightening.

[Wilber]

Based only on this article, it would seem rather dumb.

[geoffrey]

BD, do you honestly believe that there is no threat of terrorism in Canada or the United States today?

[Black Dog]

BD, do you honestly believe that there is no threat of terrorism in Canada or the United States today?

As I've said before, I believe the threat of terrorism in Canada and the U.S. to be distant and overblown. Certainly the actions of those charged with prosecuting the "war on terror" would seem to validate my belief. If they don't take it seriously (and I would say a regime that arrests drug lords that could help them fight terror and invades countries unconnected to the specific terrorist threat is not taking it seriously at all), why should I?

[myata]

It's sufficient to put the numbers of civilian casualties side by side to instantly know where the real terror is.

And yes, drumming "war on terror" is starting to feel quite annoying. To the extent that I'll vote for any politician (even a beer party) who will officially drop the stupid thing. Yes we should take care, and seriously, of our security. Just drop the dumb "war" thing and get to real work instead.

[margrace]

BD, do you honestly believe that there is no threat of terrorism in Canada or the United States today?

Oh yes there is a threat but it is from White Canadian citizens who maintain that to have the government they way they want it we should have civil war. I have met too many of these odd people to debunk any type of terrorist attack. It is just that we look in the wrong places.

[myata]

That's the danger of meaningless catchy phrases like "war on terror". If it didn't pop into Bushes' mind, who knows maybe it'd save US (and the rest of us) the war in Iraq. Something to think about.

[M.Dancer]

I believe the threat of terrorism in Canada and the U.S. to be distant and overblown.

Because London, Madrid and New York are so far away......

[myata]

And Iraq (as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, etc, etc, before it) - even farther?

[Black Dog]

Because London, Madrid and New York are so far away......

By the same logic, then, you probably shouldn't get on an airplane......

To repeat myself:

No one is saying there's no terrorism. But for all the fear and all the hype, they've been might quiet on the domestic front. It's also worth noting that, not only have the terrorists been quiet, but the people charged with catching potential terrorists here have been coming up pretty much empty in spite of the growth of the state security apparatus. Now, I suppose it's possible and there waiting patiently, but I can't image what they might be waiting for.

[geoffrey]

Some in Canada obviously forget that Canada was the source of the largest airline terrorist attack before 9/11, caused by religious extremists.

Here.

Terorrism has happened in Canada (sure it happened over Ireland, but it was a Canadian departure) and hundreds of Canadian citiziens have died as a result.

So we can keep pretending it won't happen to us, but it has happened before, and is likely to happen again.

[Black Dog]

Some in Canada obviously forget that Canada was the source of the largest airline terrorist attack before 9/11, caused by religious extremists.

Terorrism has happened in Canada (sure it happened over Ireland, but it was a Canadian departure) and hundreds of Canadian citiziens have died as a result.

So we can keep pretending it won't happen to us, but it has happened before, and is likely to happen again.

I looked back at my posts and saw that they were, in fact, written in English and not Swahili. So I'm a little puzzled why, to borrow a phrase, "some in Canada" cannot grasp the difference between a statement denying the existence of a terrorist threat altogether (which no one has made) and a statement indicating that said threat is not particularily severe. Nor am I celar on the implications of a statement like "it has happened before, and is likely to happen again." I mean, yeah: so?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Some in Canada obviously forget that Canada was the source of the largest airline terrorist attack before 9/11, caused by religious extremists.

Terorrism has happened in Canada (sure it happened over Ireland, but it was a Canadian departure) and hundreds of Canadian citiziens have died as a result.

So we can keep pretending it won't happen to us, but it has happened before, and is likely to happen again.

I looked back at my posts and saw that they were, in fact, written in English and not Swahili. So I'm a little puzzled why, to borrow a phrase, "some in Canada" cannot grasp the difference between a statement denying the existence of a terrorist threat altogether (which no one has made) and a statement indicating that said threat is not particularily severe. Nor am I celar on the implications of a statement like "it has happened before, and is likely to happen again." I mean, yeah: so?

That's your problem on the far left: no WMD, terrosit threat or possibility of enemy attack is "severe" enough until it has already happened - and even then you spend your time assuring everyone that the attackers "come from a broad strata of society" and that "not all muslims are terrosists"

[Black Dog]

That's your problem on the far left: no WMD, terrosit threat or possibility of enemy attack is "severe" enough until it has already happened

By the same token, I find the wingnuts like yourself to be totally ignorant of the threat of giant killer asteroids. What will it take for you to wake up?

and even then you spend your time assuring everyone that the attackers "come from a broad strata of society" and that "not all muslims are terrosists"

Well: are all Muslims terrorists?

[guyser]

That's your problem on the far left: no WMD, terrosit threat or possibility of enemy attack is "severe" enough until it has already happened -

Oh oh the scary right ...everything and everyone is a terrorist.

Pffft...unless you live in one of the major cities in Canada, then you have zero to worry about and just go about your business.

And if you do live in one of our major cities, then go about your business too, cuz it aint gonna happen.

PHD at KR University are you ?

[obsidian]

what do we have to be afraid of.

3000 people died of 300 million in the us

they just want us to live in fear so we sacrafice our rights and liberties for a false sense of security. wether you are willing to accept it or not, this is the exact same thing hitler did. we are now united against a common enemy, 1st identified as terrorist extremists, but if you listen to fox news or CNN it appears thats its shifting. it is shifting towards a broader category, that of muslims. and if you asked an american why they attacked on sept 11th, it was because of their religion, or because theyre jealous of our freedom. LOGICALLY how does it make sense, look what the "terrorist" have brought upon themselves, if they actually are responsible. an attack on the US is the EXACT opposite thing they would want to do. and for the most part we hear of al queda in the news. it was started and initially funded by the US, and was implimented to fight of the red invasion of afghanistan in the 80's.

and if you dont think they're controlling us, or trying to

straight from the patriot act

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`( appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

so wait, if the citizens try to change the governments policy it is and act of domestic terrorism? if anyone tried to change the way of the population that would also be illegal? and any act that is dangerous towards a humand life, like what smoking? do you see how broad these terms are. this whole thing is just an excuse to control us..

i also reccomend that you read the patriot act, its 1000 pages + taking away rights, it's ridiculous. it grants bush immunity, what about the magna carta...

this whole thing serves the corparate agenda perfectly.

[Canadian Blue]

I'm more worried about getting killed from a car crash then I am about getting killed from terrorism. If we really want to stop terrorism then we should figure out the root causes of terrorism. Iraq was meant to make us more secure, but I highly doubt we did anything but get a hell of alot more people pissed off at us.

We don't need to go to war in order to prevent terrorism, all we need to do is maintain border security, and perhaps stop interfering as much as we did in the past with regards to foriegn nation's unless the UN sanction's an action.

[geoffrey]

By the same token, I find the wingnuts like yourself to be totally ignorant of the threat of giant killer asteroids. What will it take for you to wake up?

Uh duh BD... They have the freakin' Gravity Tractor under development. What do we need to fear?

I'm more worried about getting killed from a car crash then I am about getting killed from terrorism. If we really want to stop terrorism then we should figure out the root causes of terrorism. Iraq was meant to make us more secure, but I highly doubt we did anything but get a hell of alot more people pissed off at us.

Your much more likely to die in a car crash. Iraq is a piss poor example. Removing terrorist harbouring governments like the Taliban on the other hand is a great accomplishment for our security.

We don't need to go to war in order to prevent terrorism, all we need to do is maintain border security, and perhaps stop interfering as much as we did in the past with regards to foriegn nation's unless the UN sanction's an action.

The UN doesn't really like to get it's hands dirty. They watched and ate popcorn while 800,000 died in Rwanda. Kosovo we waited until the cleansing started. In Kuwaitt we waited until Saddam invaded and had a firm grasp of the oil fields so that he could set them all ablaze on the way out.

Personally, I think it's rather reckless to wait until the UN decides to do something, don't you?

Unilateral action (though if Canada intervened in Rwanda as a leader, the rest of the world would have been at our side in a second), is justified in many cases.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear geoffrey,

Unilateral action (though if Canada intervened in Rwanda as a leader, the rest of the world would have been at our side in a second), is justified in many cases.

I suggest you read up on this a bit more. Nobody except Canada and a few small countries even wanted to help in Rwanda. The UN cannot force countries to supply troops or aid, they can only ask. When Dallaire asked why the US was not assisting, he was told that it would cost approximately 86,000 Rwandans to equal the 'value' of one US soldier.

The Belgians were there, at the start, but all they did was fire off all the mission's ammo supply in training, and then left early without replacing it.

Removing terrorist harbouring governments like the Taliban on the other hand is a great accomplishment for our security.

This much is true, and it is why the rest of the world basically backed up the US when they invaded Afghanistan without prior UN approval.

As I have said before, one cannot, in actuality, declare war on terror, nor terrorism, because they are methods, not people or places. The 'root cause'will have to be faced sooner or later, political correctness be damned...its religion. This particular imroglio is merely Islamo-fascism vs. Mammon, but soon others will be forced to join the fray. It is often best to choose your own battle conditions and grounds, isn't it?

[August1991]

Like Bush's war cry ("Go shopping!") stories like this indicate that the very authours of the war on terror aren't taking it particularily seriously. So, my question is: are hey misleading us about the threat of terrorism or are they just incompetent morons who couldn't find their ass in the dark with both hands and a flashlight? I'm not usre which idea is more frightening.

BD, I'm confused by your OP. And your metaphors are not helpful.

From what i can gather, the US government arrested someone who is both a security threat to the US and also involved in the illegal drug trade. That's wrong?

Sometimes I get the impression that too many people in the world need a reminder of proper behaviour and improper behaviour. We can quibble about how well the US government accomplishes its goals but the goals themselves seem above reproach.

Black Dog, do you favour the Taliban? Do you support heroin traders?

[gc1765]

By the same token, I find the wingnuts like yourself to be totally ignorant of the threat of giant killer asteroids. What will it take for you to wake up?

Not to mention the severe threat we face from lightning....

(I wish the smileys were still working so I could make the sarcasm as obvious as possible).

[obsidian]

the reason why this isnt resolved is because theyre both the same thing, concerning afghanistan. the reason why drugs still remain to be available to North America is because we buy them to get the locals support for our movement to get an oil pipeline. but hey its illegal isnt it? yes it is illegal but has that ever made a difference? most of the cartels we know about, but remain untouched because we need their support. but in our own countries the users are penalized, how can we ever solve a problem without getting rid of the SOURCE. but why are the "users" penalized, its as simple as your 1st day in any economic class. supply and demand. we ban the production of trafficking within the country because it cuts into the int'l drug profits. in the iran-contra affair, aswell as vietnam, it is FACT that the cia knowingly did bussiness with and for indigenous druglords.

the kerry commity report said that

-the cia knowingly conducts bussiness with drug lords

-had to have been involved

and 7 years later after the iran-contra affair, we got an admission from the cia director that this was true.

the bottom line is, we're ruining their country, and we need their support. so we buy it, appease them with the fiat money we use.

the marijuana industry in BC alone is estimated to be make 6 billion a year. heroin costs more than weed, is addictive, and your customers either quit, or die in 3 years. imagine the profits and then it becomes feasible that we are actually using this. COCAINE IS WORTH MORE THAN GOLD, BY WEIGHT. heroin is worth more than oil, more than weed, and when these 2 drugs are illegal it makes profits soar even higher..

[Black Dog]

BD, I'm confused by your OP. And your metaphors are not helpful.

From what i can gather, the US government arrested someone who is both a security threat to the US and also involved in the illegal drug trade. That's wrong?

You should probably re-read the article and OP. And then re-read it again. The point is pretty simple and is explicit:

Noorzai was also a powerful leader of a million-member tribe who had offered to help bring stability to a region that is spinning out of control. Because he is in a jail cell, he is not feeding the U.S. and the Afghan governments information; he is not cajoling his tribe to abandon the Taliban and pursue political reconciliation; he is not reaching out to his remaining contacts in the Taliban to push them to cease their struggle. And he is hardly in a position to help persuade his followers to abandon opium production, when the amount of land devoted to growing poppies has risen 60%.

I don't know what's confusing you.

Black Dog, do you favour the Taliban? Do you support heroin traders?

???

[PolyNewbie]

The simple fact is that these poppy fields could be eliminated easily if that was desired. The fields can be detected from satallite or air serveilance by their electromagnetic spectrum. We are in these wars to build up opium production, not to eradicate it. This is shown in the UN statistics for opium production in Afganistan. We went in when the opium production was almost destroyed and now its at record levels. Our armies wanted that because the US depends on opium to finance its black op adventures.

Fake terror attacks keep TV watching Canadians thinking that we are fighting terrorists when in reality we are fighting to keep a drug trade active and need an excuse to send young and innocent people over there to die for it.