Michael Scheuer --- views on the post-Osama atmosphere

[Alchemist]

The Operation Enduring Freedom would take decades upon decades to dignify if it's lawful or not so that would be a waste of time and space debating such things.

debating with you is a waste of time and space.

[MDresden]

I was getting ready to edit my post to allow explanation. I'm not saying I'm washing my hands free of anything that has been done or will be done.

What I'm saying is...I love the ability to have my own views and thoughts and the ability to express them to my peers...please don't take it the wrong way.

[MDresden]

debating with you is a waste of time and space.

Well, I'm not debating per say. I don't know enough of either side of the argument to point to a "valid" opinion...and that's a fault of mine for not doing research I admit...but I will not let myself nor my country be "attacked" on a forum (not the reason I'm here either) so openly and everything here is expressed so radically for lack of a better word.

The debates are always so one-sided that I just quite often "step out" of them since I don't have enough knowledge of either side of the issue.

[faye]

b.a. shouldn't the question be 'did you do what you have been accused of?'

[BarakzaiAbdali]

debating with you is a waste of time and space.

Exactly, now you are geting what I am saying. Make him answer the aforementioned questions and it will be a whole lot less of waste of time. The issue is that he is ever so afraid to examine these issues and to do soul searching regarding the matter.

Matt, what made Alexander a great general was that he allowed Haphestian, his first in command, to understand and respect his enemy. When they encountered armies like King Poruses in India, they hardly had time to construct a narrative about terrorism etc. When some henchman found the fugitive Darius and murdered him, Alexander was so grieved after consultation with Haphestian that he had the two killed. He knew and understood his enemy was a formidable one that he had been lucky to beat and he felt that no King ought to have been treated in such a defiling manner.

In this way, military men like Robert E Lee understood the psyche of their enemy superbly and never made up narratives in their head about good and evil.

[MDresden]

...please refer to my last post. I don't know enough of any issue to really talk directly about it.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

...please refer to my last post. I don't know enough of any issue to really talk directly about it.

Yet you host an offensive signature that denotes that you think you know enough to label a man a terrorist and not look into the intellectual and evidence based mirror.

[faye]

m scheuer reckoned osama was so powerful that he had planned all of these actions of america and was bringing the us to its knees by sending it broke financially, didn't he?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Well, I'm not debating per say. I don't know enough of either side of the argument to point to a "valid" opinion...and that's a fault of mine for not doing research I admit...but I will not let myself nor my country be "attacked" on a forum (not the reason I'm here either) so openly and everything here is expressed so radically for lack of a better word.

The debates are always so one-sided that I just quite often "step out" of them since I don't have enough knowledge of either side of the issue.

Matt, we have more information at our fingertips than any nation before us in existence. Yet, we know more about what Jen did to Brad and what Angelina Jolie did to them both etc. Instead of viewing your country as under attack, you ought to understand the phenomena. Take a step back and look at the complexity you see here where there are vocal minority secularists, traditionalists, Islamists, confused American born Afghans (according to some here I am in the latter category). Its not as simple as people "hate" America and therefore you should jump, long a programmed automaton to its defense. There are people here at wish America ill, people that are fine with America and just wished it would disengage from these sheninagins, and people here that want to use Americans for their own interests. And why do you see it as radical? Why not get to the root of all of this so you could truly serve your country in the manner that General Washington demanded of you, as opposed to disobeying his command to not get tied into interventionalism. Here are his words of guidance to you about nation building and all the things that you think are good things that you are citing (building schools, canals, highway 1):

Quotes from Washington's farewell address:

Trade and conduct commerce, but have little political connection:
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."

Do not take on another nation's burdens:
"”So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation."

[BarakzaiAbdali]

What Washington meant by: "by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate"

was the blood and treasure you are wasting in Afghanistan by chasing windmills.

[MDresden]

Again, a great speech for a politican or a member of congress or the president, but as a Soldier...not so much. I still have my own values...but to say for me to disobey commands is treason at the least.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

m scheuer reckoned osama was so powerful that he had planned all of these actions of america and was bringing the us to its knees by sending it broke financially, didn't he?

The central thesis he puts forward is nearly that. He indicates that Mr Bin Ladin saw the ruinous collapse of the Soviets in which their nation seizing strategies were costing them blood and treasure and decided that such a strategy would be optimal to allow for America's propping hand to be disabled from behind Mubarak and the other tyrants. The Prophet Muhammad appeared to advocate taking on the "near enemy." Mr. Bin ladin appeared to believe that the far enemy propped up the near enemy and that if that invisible hand were broken, the Karzais of Egypt, Saudi, Afghanistan, and Pakistan would all be done away with. With that in mind, he sought to drain America's coffers and to lure them out of a country protected by two massive oceans and two very friendly countries. He an Zawahari joked that the Americans made themselves available to be killed on the battle field in ways that allowed them to actually afflict blood and treasure loses on Americans.

Ultimately though, it was our policy in regard to the Middle East, Energy dependency, Islamic Theocracy, and Israel that fueled this insurgency. Per what matt cites regarding the laptops, it appears that Scheuer was correct... Mr. Bin Ladin ran the organization like a company where one advanced on merit. He forced his sons into the battle zone per the writings of his wife and son Omar in Growing up Bin Ladin, and appeard to tell them that they would not automatically inherent a leadership role.. they had to earn it. This is what made him a potent enemy for Americans... was that he was an organization man that matched words with deeds.

[MDresden]

And was put down.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Again, a great speech for a politican or a member of congress or the president, but as a Soldier...not so much. I still have my own values...but to say for me to disobey commands is treason at the least.

Well once again, as a soldier you display offensive signatures and hold an opinion. So the speech was meant for you from the first Commander and Chief that was himself an insurgent in the eyes of the british. Had they caught him they would have done to him what they did to Patrick Henry. You ought to think abou that. You came to a Pashtun forum and claimed that your intention is to learn, yet you advertise a distate for wanting to understand what drive a militarized portion of the Pashtun population.

Regarding treason, for sure. Those Americans that are departing from the words of the founders to prop up tyrannies, to support rogue nation states like Israel at the expense of our national securty, and render us less safe because of continued intervention are doing as much.

[MDresden]

I'm talking about you directly.