Scheuer on London Attack

[a_unique_person]

It's called "Turnspeak". You attack someone and then turn it around 180 degrees and claim they attacked you. For instance;What a load of dog doo....If I follow that logic then banks ultimately are to blame for being robbed and women are ultimately to blame for being raped. Those two statements are no different than "the United States and Britain ultimately to blame for fueling militant violence".

That's not 'turnspeak', that's fact. The militant's were there, the actions of the US and Britain have 'fueled' their violence.

 

[zenith-nadir]

That's not 'turnspeak', that's fact. The militant's were there, the actions of the US and Britain have 'fueled' their violence.

Sorry a_u_p but only someone with limited intelligence would accept that America and Britain freeing millions of Iraqis and Afghanis is "fueling the militancy".

In 2001 there was no American or British forces in Iraq or Afghanistan yet OBL stuck New York and Washington...the turnspeak then was "American bases in Saudi Arabia". In '98 when the embassies in Kenya were bombed there was no American or British forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, in 1996 when they blew up the Khobar Towers there was no American or British forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, in 1993 when they bombed the World Trade Center there was no American or British forces in Iraq or Afghanistan... During the 60's, 70's and 80s when the PLO was blowing jews up around the world and hijacking aircraft there was no American or British forces in Iraq or Afghanistan...back then they blamed the PLO terrorism against jews on Israel... and not "American or British forces in Iraq".

Now all of a sudden in 2005 American and British forces in Iraq or Afghanistan "fuels militancy"?




Blaming terrorism on the victims is a propoganda technique used to take the RESPONSIBILITY off the terrorists....and unfortunately people like you buy such propoganda hook, line and sinker.

 

[a_unique_person]

Sorry a_u_p but only someone with limited intelligence would accept that America and Britain freeing millions of Iraqis and Afghanis is "fueling the militancy".

The militancy is more widespread and active than it ever was. Perhaps you have a different word to use than fuelling. Stoking, perhaps.

In 2001 there was no American or British forces in Iraq or Afghanistan yet OBL stuck New York and Washington...the turnspeak then was "American bases in Saudi Arabia".

That was the claim, serious conservatives such as scheur seem to accept it. Don't blame me. US troops in Saudi was no different to them than Russion troops in Afghanistan.

In '98 when the embassies in Kenya were bombed there was no American or British forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, in 1996 when they blew up the Khobar Towers there was no American or British forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, in 1993 when they bombed the World Trade Center there was no American or British forces in Iraq or Afghanistan... During the 60's, 70's and 80s when the PLO was blowing jews up around the world and hijacking aircraft there was no American or British forces in Iraq or Afghanistan...back then they blamed the PLO terrorism against jews on Israel... and not "American or British forces in Iraq".

Now all of a sudden in 2005 American and British forces in Iraq or Afghanistan "fuels militancy"?

It's not all of a sudden, plenty of people were warning Bush what was coming, including Colin Powell. Bush went out of his way to ignore the warnings.

Blaming terrorism on the victims is a propoganda technique used to take the RESPONSIBILITY off the terrorists....and unfortunately people like you buy such propoganda hook, line and sinker.

All it means is that Dubya is not responsible for anything, by definition. That ashen look on his face after the recent bombing tells me otherwise.

My guess he was wondering why the hell he invaded Iraq when Afghanistan was nowhere near finished.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
All I was saying was the the majority of Saudi's may view the presence of US troops in US bases on their soil differently to their unrepresentative rulers.

Do you have any evidence that they do or is this just speculation in place of fact?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
There are better ways to boost your economy than have a US base next to you. It is the most often cited, and lamest, argument for a base I have heard.

It doesn't matter if you think it's lame or not, the fact remains that a US base does provide a significant boost to a local economy. They have to hire someone to build it, it creates periphreal jobs, and then much of the soldiers income gets spent locally.

So the issue isn't if you personally think there may be better ways to boost an economy, the issue is there are tangible benefits to having a US base near and that it's quite possible for people to feel things other than resentment.

So let me ask you again; if the government agrees to it and wants it, why should a US military base be an insult to its soverignty?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Blaming terrorism on the victims is a propoganda technique used to take the RESPONSIBILITY off the terrorists....and unfortunately people like you buy such propoganda hook, line and sinker.

One correction: He doesn't buy into the propaganda, he disseminates the propaganda. I often think he doesn't believe half the things he says, but just likes to get a rise out of people.

 

[a_unique_person]

Do you have any evidence that they do or is this just speculation in place of fact?



It doesn't matter if you think it's lame or not, the fact remains that a US base does provide a significant boost to a local economy. They have to hire someone to build it, it creates periphreal jobs, and then much of the soldiers income gets spent locally.

So the issue isn't if you personally think there may be better ways to boost an economy, the issue is there are tangible benefits to having a US base near and that it's quite possible for people to feel things other than resentment.

So let me ask you again; if the government agrees to it and wants it, why should a US military base be an insult to its soverignty?

How many foreign powers have a military base on US soil?

 

[a_unique_person]

Blaming terrorism on the victims is a propoganda technique used to take the RESPONSIBILITY off the terrorists....and unfortunately people like you buy such propoganda hook, line and sinker.

I see politics is the art of the possible, you view it as a war between right and wrong. I believe my approach is the more practical and productive in the long run.

As it is, the US has been negotiating with the 'terrorists' in Iraq. The point of view seems to be shifting more to my point of view than yours.

 

[Mycroft]

How many foreign powers have a military base on US soil?

None that I know of, but so what?

If the US made an agreement with another government to have one of their bases on our soil, what would be the problem?

 

[Mycroft]

I see politics is the art of the possible, you view it as a war between right and wrong. I believe my approach is the more practical and productive in the long run.

How is blaming the victim "looking at the possible"?

 

[a_unique_person]

None that I know of, but so what?

If the US made an agreement with another government to have one of their bases on our soil, what would be the problem?

So if the US made an agreement to have a French base US soil, would that be an issue?

 

[a_unique_person]

How is blaming the victim "looking at the possible"?

I didn't know I was blaming the victim. A simple 'you are wrong' response can often be counter productive.

 

[Mycroft]

So if the US made an agreement to have a French base US soil, would that be an issue?

I can't see why it would be an issue, except that I can't imagine a purpose for a French base in the US. But suppose Canada wanted a radar station in Alaska, or Japan wanted a naval refueling station in Guam. Why not? They're our allies, let's work out an agreement.

Suppose England wanted a naval base in some unused island that belonged to Australia. Would you be offended by that? If so, why?

Let's make an analogy:

If someone moves into my house uninvited, takes over one of our bedrooms and I can't do anything to get rid of him, then yes, that's a major insult and a violation of my property rights.

If the same person moves into my house, but at my invitation, pays rent and works out a deal on kitchen priveleges, then it's no insult at all. In fact, I want him there.

You're working very hard to manufacture an insult where there is none. Why? I have no idea, but I suspect you don't really believe this nonesense and just enjoy getting a reaction.

 

[Manny]

a_unique_person, the question below remains unanswered. You could clear up a whole lot with a simple yes or no.

For the record, do you agree with the strategy to destroy al Qaeda by killing or capturing them?

 

[a_unique_person]

a_unique_person, the question below remains unanswered. You could clear up a whole lot with a simple yes or no.

Al Qaeda needs to be resolved, of course. Getting rid of the them is only a short term solution, and the act of doing so in a badly planned and thought out manner is only going to create more members.

In the long run, the West and Islam have to get on. That has to be resolved as well. To only see a solution in military terms is taking too simplistic an approach.

 

[Mycroft]

Al Qaeda needs to be resolved, of course. Getting rid of the them is only a short term solution, and the act of doing so in a badly planned and thought out manner is only going to create more members.

In the long run, the West and Islam have to get on. That has to be resolved as well. To only see a solution in military terms is taking too simplistic an approach.

I don't believe this nonsense that everything the west does is going to enrage more Muslims and drive them to Al Qaeda, because I don't believe Muslims are a barbaric people that can't tell the difference between the US waging war on a despotic regime and the US waging war on Islam. The truth is they're not stupid and they can tell the difference.

I don't believe Al Qaeda represents Islam any more than reverend Phelps represents Christianity. The West will get along just fine with that part of Islam that doesn't want to kill in the name of God. For the ones that do and who are willing to travel to Afghanistan or Iraq or who sets bombs off on public busses or commuter trains, well we are at war with them.

The ones that do want to kill, appeasing them only makes them bolder and more ambitious. The very last thing you want to do is prove that terror works, that's the one way to guarantee more terror.

 

[Manny]

Al Qaeda needs to be resolved, of course.

"Resolved" is what needs to be done with UN incompetency and impotence. "Resolved" is what will happen, one way or another, to rapidly rising real estate prices. Problems with your neighbors need to be "resolved." Cockroaches need to be eradicated, not resolved.

Once again you dodge what should be the easiest question in the western world to answer. So I ask once again. Do you agree with the strategy of eliminating al Qaeda by capturing or killing its members?

 

[a_unique_person]

"Resolved" is what needs to be done with UN incompetency and impotence. "Resolved" is what will happen, one way or another, to rapidly rising real estate prices. Problems with your neighbors need to be "resolved." Cockroaches need to be eradicated, not resolved.

Once again you dodge what should be the easiest question in the western world to answer. So I ask once again. Do you agree with the strategy of eliminating al Qaeda by capturing or killing its members?

The strategy, if that's all it is, isn't going to work. It would be futile. That's why I said 'resolved'. Just identifying the bad guys and taking them out isn't going to solve the problems that give rise to them in the first place. Eg, toadying up to Saudi when it has been one of the major forces behind fundamentalism in the first place. That has been a ticking time bomb that has been waiting to go off for years.

 

[Manny]

The strategy, if that's all it is, isn't going to work.

Not alone, no. There's lots more to be done. And reasonable people argue about what -- I believe, as does the President, that creating stable, peaceful democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq is an important step. Other people have different ideas.

But what else in addition to eliminating al Qaeda by capturing or killing its members needs to be done is not the question. Whatever else needs to be done, the question on the table right now is: Do you agree with the strategy of capuring or killing the members of al Qaeda? There's no use discussing anything further until your answer to that is crystal clear. Unless your answer is "no" and you're unwilling for some reason to admit it, I'm honestly flummoxed at your unwillingness to answer this simple question.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

It's called "Turnspeak".

For example:
Because America did "A" we were forced to do "B"...Because Britain has troops in Iraq we are forced to blow up buses and subways in London.

Some people are confused by this propaganda technique and actually accept these statements.

I fail to see what's confusing. Actions stimulate counter-actions. Sometimes the results are benign, others much less so; sometimes they are intended, sometimes un.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by ZN
It's called "Turnspeak". You attack someone and then turn it around 180 degrees and claim they attacked you.

Neither Scheur or I am disagree with you. He just explains why it is such an effective recruiting and propanda device for OBL. The Islamic idea of "Defensive Jihad" does not need much twisting for people to support OBL.

One other thing he emphasizes is that we have tried to get Russia, India and China involved in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This also plays in OBL's hands because these three nations are perceived as enemies of Islam. We gained extra emnities from Muslims with very little gain.

It is extremely helpful to understand our enemies motivation, tactics and recruiting devices. It does not mean we sympathize or accept their arguments or actions. It just gives us a better way of defeating our enemies.

That is was Scheuer does effectively. He suggested actions are not so well stated.

CBL