They tried to "hit" Gordon Brown.

[Puppycow]

So, I guess the takeaway is that "intelligence and police work" work in the WoT.
You don't necessarily have to invade other countries.

 

[JihadJane]

So, I guess the takeaway is that "intelligence and police work" work in the WoT.
You don't necessarily have to invade other countries.

Why does "intelligence and police work" have to be part of a war?

 

[JihadJane]

Tariq Ali: 'Brown's al-Qaida blame game':

"Gordon Brown is targeting Pakistan. His claim that 75% of UK terror plots originate there is now part of a common western stance that refuses to accept any responsibility for encouraging the growth of recruits to jihadi organisations."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/14/pakistan-gordonbrown

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why does "intelligence and police work" have to be part of a war?

Intelligence is a functional area of any military operation, if war is what you are asking about here. It is also a necessary function whether a war is on or not, and in theory, good intelligence can avert a war by allowing one side to use information as leverage. Not always possible. Intelligence also provides a curb against surprise. Bad intelligence . . . nuff said about that.

Typically, the staff section for intelligence is dubbed "2" in most organized armed forces: S2, N2, G2, A2, etecetera. 1 is manpower/admin, 3 is Operation, 4 Logistics, 5 plans/policy, 6 Commcs, 7 training/readiness, and so on.

Police work? It's necessary in this "war on terror" thing since terrorism doesn't stay in a nice little box in its exercise. It crosses functional lines, to where police work, counterintelligence work, and at times operating forces, are all tools necessary to counter this use of force for political and ideological ends. The stovepiping of matters military into "war" is an artificial mental construct used by the misinformed, and amateur, and the ignorant. War is part of the political continuum. So too is intelligence work. Police work is part of the continuum of social and political frameworks, since there is always someone, somewhere, trying to pull something off at odds with laws or rules. <-- That reality is one reason why the One World Kumbaya is a fantasy, not a reality, until humans are replaced by something else.

Question answered.

By the way, JJane, I'd like to thank you for giving us all an example of what a stupid question is. It's appreciated.

DR

 

[BenBurch]

Intelligence is a functional area of any military operation, if war is what you are asking about here. It is also a necessary function whether a war is on or not, and in theory, good intelligence can avert a war by allowing one side to use information as leverage. Not always possible. Intelligence also provides a curb against surprise. Bad intelligence . . . nuff said about that.

Typically, the staff section for intelligence is dubbed "2" in most organized armed forces: S2, N2, G2, A2, etecetera. 1 is manpower/admin, 3 is Operation, 4 Logistics, 5 plans/policy, 6 Commcs, 7 training/readiness, and so on.

Police work? It's necessary in this "war on terror" thing since terrorism doesn't stay in a nice little box in its exercise. It crosses functional lines, to where police work, counterintelligence work, and at times operating forces, are all tools necessary to counter this use of force for political and ideological ends. The stovepiping of matters military into "war" is an artificial mental construct used by the misinformed, and amateur, and the ignorant. War is part of the political continuum. So too is intelligence work. Police work is part of the continuum of social and political frameworks, since there is always someone, somewhere, trying to pull something off at odds with laws or rules. <-- That reality is one reason why the One World Kumbaya is a fantasy, not a reality, until humans are replaced by something else.

Question answered.

By the way, JJane, I'd like to thank you for giving us all an example of what a stupid question is. It's appreciated.

DR

You make my argument for why this ought to have never been called a war. It's policing, and, even if large force (borrowed from the military) needs to be deployed to make arrests (or kill the subjects attempting to arrest them.)

Yeah, I know its largely a matter of philosophy, but thinking of it as a war does not seem to be productive to me.

-Ben

 

[Darth Rotor]

You make my argument for why this ought to have never been called a war. It's policing, and, even if large force (borrowed from the military) needs to be deployed to make arrests (or kill the subjects attempting to arrest them.)

Yeah, I know its largely a matter of philosophy, but thinking of it as a war does not seem to be productive to me.

-Ben

Ben, the long running dialogue on "how does one deal with terrorists" I'll leave for another thread, rather than derail. We agree and we don't at the same time.

To address your point briefly, it is a mistake is to try and place an artificial stovepipe between war and peace in the modern age. Not sure if you realized this, but you just made the attempt to stovepipe as well, into "not war," which is part of the perceptual model that's about forty (or a few hundred) years old. Welcome to 2008. Likewise, Bush and his folks used the tired "War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terror" language to build a perceptual stovepipe into something that fit an old framework. Their model had and has some critical flaws. I'll say again, when I first heard of this "War on Terror" theme, it was my assumption that the bulk of what America would be doing would be knife work in the dark, Spec Ops stuff, and a lot of stuff in the international financial sector, with the aim of cutting off the money seeping into terrorist networks. What we got was a War, and in particular the War in Iraq was absolutely not what an effective War on Terror would look like. The Afghanistan OEF as a part of a global effort, to lay the lumber on a state sponsor of criminals and terrorists, wasn't a bad move along with other low profile operations. When OEF became an economy of force, a significant political opportunity was lost.

The shift in perception IMO needs to be in better forumulating what war is rather than what it isn't. Welcome to 4GW, where play is continuous and the lines blurred and gray. Until people stop making artificial distinctions, they risk making perceptual errors of the sort you just made, and the Bush team made. An error at your or my level, given what means we have avaliable, is less of a problem than Bush's level. It isn't like there weren't people who know, who knew, and who were providing expert advice. It was brushed aside.

DR

 

[gtc]

Not sure if you realized this, but you just made the attempt to stovepipe as well, into "not war," which is part of the perceptual model that's about forty (or a few hundred) years old.

I think the continuum approach that you outlined was recognised by the British during their forays into what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan (and during the troubles in Ireland). I also think there are parralels with the way the US handled the mopping after the Civil War but I don't know much about that part of your history. Was it used during the fronteir days as well, or was that more strictly military?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I think the continuum approach that you outlined was recognised by the British during their forays into what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan (and during the troubles in Ireland). I also think there are parralels with the way the US handled the mopping after the Civil War but I don't know much about that part of your history. Was it used during the fronteir days as well, or was that more strictly military?

Mixed bag. The Reconstruction and the various Indian wars on the frontier had very different political aims. The aim of the Reconstruction was eventual reunification on terms the victorious North considered acceptable. (Worthy of a few threads on its own, that one.) The aims of the wars on the plains were varied, some pure conquest, it seems, others more like the continuum deal. We'd have to get down to cases. The Lakota successfully, about 1866, rebuffed westward expansion and got a treaty for a while, which lasted about as long as it took someone to find gold in the Black Hills.

The Indian Wars, you can argue successfully, go back to colonial times on the frontier. They were certainly well established as a fact of life by the early 1800's. It was a combination of deal making, fighting, and making allies with one tribe against others. Pawnee and Crow scouts used, for example, on the Plains as scouts against Lakota or Cheyenne. The Blackhawk wars were part of what opened up the Midwest for eventually becoming the world's breadbasket.

DR

 

[BirdStrike]

Jane: "Something approximating "al Qaeda" exists and they really want to kill Westerners and who can blame them? The West has killed a lot of Easterners, not to mention trashing whole countries."

Here's a question for Jane. If you could "make things right" in the world, what would you do?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Something approximating "al Qaeda" exists and they really want to kill Westerners and who can blame them? The West has killed a lot of Easterners, not to mention trashing whole countries.

I am not sure if the original idea of The Base is what is in play now. To pretend that the underground resistance remains fixed in nature seems a mistake. Given how the organization adapted early on, I expect it will continue to adapt.

FWIW, from infoplease.com, a little summary on its focus and founding purpose:

There is more, this relates to your observation of who wants to attack "the west" and why.

After his expulsion from Saudi Arabia, bin Laden established headquarters for al-Qaeda in Khartoum, Sudan. The first actions of al-Qaeda against American interests were attacks on U.S. servicemen in Somalia. A string of terrorist actions suspected to have been orchestrated by al-Qaeda followed, and in August 1996 bin Laden issued a "Declaration of War" against the U.S.

Al-Qaeda also worked to forge alliances with other radical groups. In February 1998, bin Laden announced an alliance of terrorist organizations—the "International Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders"—that included the Egyptian al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Harakat ul-Ansar, and other groups.

In 1994 Sudan—under pressure from Saudi Arabia and the U.S.—expelled bin Laden, who moved his base of operations to Afghanistan. Bin Laden was the "guest" of the Taliban until the U.S. drove them from power in Nov. 2001. Al-Qaeda set up terrorist training camps in the war-torn nation, as it had in Sudan.

Although al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden have become virtually synonymous, bin Laden does not run the organization single-handedly. His top advisor is Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's theological leader and bin Laden's probable successor. Al-Zawahiri is an Egyptian surgeon from an upper-class family. He joined the country's Islamist movement in the late 1970s. He served three years in prison on charges connected to the assassination of Anwar Sadat, during which time he was tortured. After his release he went to Afghanistan, where he met bin Laden and became his personal physician and advisor.

While al-Qaeda encourages its reputation as a vast global network, many experts believe that at this stage al-Qaeda itself has just a small core of adherents, but serves as the virulent inspiration to countless violent Islamic extremists.

Monkey see, monkey do. Why are these monkeys your heroes, JJane?

While the war on terror has cost the United States some $1 trillion, al-Qeada remains a global threat. In fact, in August 2008, Ted Gistaro, the U.S. government's senior terrorism analyst, said in a report that by forging closer ties to Pakistani militants, al-Qaeda is more capable of launching an attack in the United States than it was in 2007. The Pakistani militants have given al-Qaeda leaders safe haven in remote areas to train recruits.

Interesting that the credit given for the US winning the cold war is in how it broke the bank of the Soviets. One wonders who is paying attention to strategic aims.

DR

 

[moon1969]

So Robert Mugabe didn"t do it? Mugabe is anti-NWO white War on Terror would do more good against people like Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong Il or Myanmar. Mugabe hates Gordon Brown because in Mugabe"s paranoid mind there is a plot against him. Yeah its all about Robert Mugabe and not those other millions of people in Zimbabwe. Gordon Brown is a hero if he removes Robert Mugabe. Mugabe is a dictator and Gordon Brown is not a dictator.

 

[JihadJane]

Here's a question for Jane. If you could "make things right" in the world, what would you do?

I don't understand the connection between your question and what I wrote but I'll answer it anyway.

I would use my godly magic powers to make humanity move on from exploitation towards sustainability

What would you do?

Why are these monkeys your heroes, JJane?

Why do you call them "monkeys" and why do you think they are my heroes. DRotor?

Question answered.

Question not answered.

By the way, JJane, I'd like to thank you for giving us all an example of what a stupid question is. It's appreciated.

DR

It was a very intelligent and relevant question, unlike your endless, toy soldier meandering.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I don't understand the connection between your question and what I wrote but I'll answer it anyway.

I would use my godly magic powers to make humanity move on from exploitation towards sustainability

What would you do?

I certainly wouldn't like to be a Palestinian if Birdstrike had some mandate to "fix the world"

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why do you call them "monkeys" and why do you think they are my heroes. DRotor?

Monkey see monkey do is a phrase, perhaps fallen from common usage, used as a criticism of people seeing someone doing something, and doing it without giving much thought to it. Its root is in the mimic ability displayed by chimps and apes. To "ape" something is to copy it. Being a clever person, I was commenting on the copy cat style, but of course, it went over your head. Your deliberate obtuseness is noted.

Question not answered.

If you get the fingers out of your ears, you might hear the answers.

It was a very intelligent and relevant question,

For very restricted values of "intelligent," perhaps.

Why do you think they are my heroes?

Because they are stickin' it to the Man, which you (like most CT folk) can't. Looks like a case of simple envy, from here. You get to live vicariously through their actions against the Man who you live in fear of. The pathology of CT isn't difficult to discern.

Something approximating "al Qaeda" exists and they really want to kill Westerners and who can blame them? The West has killed a lot of Easterners, not to mention trashing whole countries. These latest alleged plotters had been under surveillance for at least a year:

"Investigators waited a year before moving in, opting to ferret out the entire cell rather than a single part."

At least some of the alleged 911 terrorists as well as the alleged 7/7 bombers and the various UK Keystone plotters, were under similar amounts of surveillance. Surveillance is a potent form of control, which is why the authoritarian UK and US governments have been so keen to extend their eaves dropping to their entire populations.

Terrorism is too useful a political too to be left in the hands of freelance, non-state operatives. States do everything they can to manipulate and control it. They can then use it for their own purposes.

The "War on Terror" (a big lie itself) was launched and sustained by well-documented lies issuing from the governments on both sides of the Atlantic. Why, Cat, do you still trust their word?

DR

 

[JihadJane]

JihadJane: Why do you think they are my heroes?

Because they are stickin' it to the Man, which you (like most CT folk) can't. Looks like a case of simple envy, from here. You get to live vicariously through their actions against the Man who you live in fear of. The pathology of CT isn't difficult to discern.

Originally Posted by some of JJane's words:

Something approximating "al Qaeda" exists and they really want to kill Westerners and who can blame them? The West has killed a lot of Easterners, not to mention trashing whole countries. These latest alleged plotters had been under surveillance for at least a year:

"Investigators waited a year before moving in, opting to ferret out the entire cell rather than a single part."

At least some of the alleged 911 terrorists as well as the alleged 7/7 bombers and the various UK Keystone plotters, were under similar amounts of surveillance. Surveillance is a potent form of control, which is why the authoritarian UK and US governments have been so keen to extend their eaves dropping to their entire populations.

Terrorism is too useful a political too to be left in the hands of freelance, non-state operatives. States do everything they can to manipulate and control it. They can then use it for their own purposes.

The "War on Terror" (a big lie itself) was launched and sustained by well-documented lies issuing from the governments on both sides of the Atlantic. Why, Cat, do you still trust their word?

There is nothing in my words to suggest, as you claim, that al Qaeda are my heroes. You are making a groundless assertion based on nothing more solid than speculation, remote psychobabbling and your vivid imagination. You have misunderstood my observations as if they were statements of my opinions and beliefs and, bizarrly, on the evidence of a meaningless stereotype, as indicative of "CT" pathology", as if such a thing has ever been shown to exist.

Lazy psychologizing and labelling those with whom you disagree as mentally ill is a desperado's game. Raise the game.

 

[WildCat]

Lazy psychologizing and labelling those with whom you disagree as mentally ill is a desperado's game. Raise the game.

OK, here's a simple litmus test: Did American Airlines Flight 77, piloted by hijacker Hani Hanjour, hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001?

Your answer will reveal your state of mind for all to see.

 

[JihadJane]

OK, here's a simple litmus test: Did American Airlines Flight 77, piloted by hijacker Hani Hanjour, hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001?

Your answer will reveal your state of mind for all to see.

How would my answer reveal anything about my "state of mind"?

 

[gtc]

How would my answer reveal anything about my "state of mind"?

I think you know why.

 

[WildCat]

The dodge explains all.

Nothing to see here.

 

[JihadJane]

I think you know why.

I don't know why.

I would like to know what psychiatric criteria people like WildCat, DarthRotor and numerous other "debunkers" use for their confident diagnoses. Perhaps you can share any expertise you might have in this area.

Attempting to explain people's perceptions of controversial news events in terms of mental illness is extremely simplistic.