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

[BarakzaiAbdali]

And was put down.

You obviously have a hard time seeing the forest from the trees. The next few years will be a difficult time for us here in the US. We will see that just as cardiologist Eric Topol built the Cleveland Clinics department into the number 1 world class institution that it is... and then when he was forcibly removed for defending patients from Big Pharma... it remains number one even under the terrible guidance of Dr. Steve Nissen (the cardiology equivalent of Zawhari) so too will, per what Dr. Scheuer is saying, we realize that Mr. Bin Ladin built an organization in the expectation that he would meet such a fate. When that occurs, you will realize that we are committing ourselves to a generation war that will plague our grandkids. A part of his silence of the past few years was to allow the new generation to take over. The organization may very well survive a decapitation attack.

[ScimitarXEdge]

And was put down.

Bin Laden in my opinion is your (American CIA) creation, the movement against American Hegemony did not nor never rested on Bin Laden, he was merely a band wagoner in an attempt to be a sabateur; but it backfired.


The American Hegemony is seeing it's great collapse in front of itself; This fllamboyant parading of Bin Laden's death is merely a band aid for it's political and economic damage; it is to divert people away from the failures amidst American society.

how can you help us when you can't even help yourselves?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I'm talking about you directly.

Well, the truth hurts Matt. Im sorry that its a bitter pill to swallow. Also, I think you are hallucinating. Im confused. Mr. Bin Ladin is in the Arabian Sea right now... so how are you talking about me as I am not him?

[Alchemist]

By nationality I am an American Alchemist, as are you I suspect. Its not some dirty word or something. Its not even about assimilation. How is preaching the doctrine of noninterventionalism and explaining to people anywhere indicative of being brainwashed.

Your identity now is your passport?

I have done the same with Che Geuvara. Mr. Guevara was extremely upset with our policy in Latin America. Why would it be wrong to ask someone to investigate his works and understand what exactly caused him to want to violently fight American interests in Cuba and elsewhere to the point the CIA executed a kill and capture mission in Bolivia?

Umm...

Che was a revolutionist. He took up arms and engaged in a real struggle.
Talk is cheap.
And you are far from being a che.

I could have been a citizen of France, Saudi, etc and felt the same way. I think you can find Afghans abroad and in Afghanistan proper that would reflexively, despite their lack of information access, ask a simple question. Pashtuns hold solla jirgaay to try and tease out where the problems lay in a conflict between multiple parties. Usually the elders ask questions and the others explain themselves and their actions. In this same way, I believe that if you sat down an Afghan tribal leader and said look: We have two pissed off parties, America and Mr. Bin Ladin. Mr. Bin ladin supposedly slammed a plane into two buildings. America got mad and decided he was a bad man and had to die along with anyone that sympathized with him. I am sure the elder would ask a simple question: Well Mr. Bin ladin... why did you ruin Matt Dresden's buildings?

Maybe you could have been a citizen of those countries and felt the same way...and maybe not.
The fact is that now, you are.
Funny you should mention sulah jirgay...because that is exactly what Mullah Omar did with 700 elders and they found that there was no case against Bin Laden. There is no way Bin Laden could have executed such a sophisticated plan and you are going by what the Americans are saying without even looking at the evidence. So no you are not even doing that much. You are just going by the American way -"Guilty till proven innocent"

Regarding sources, as I stated, my general strategy in argument, which may or may not work, I will leave it to you to decide, is to give the opposition exactly what they want. Give them 100% of their demands and let them have everything they want to start with except the moral imperitive. Make them earn the latter. A part of that means that I use their own people's sources to argue with them. I rarely cite Muslim sources because many folks here are secularist ANPites and Westerners that would quickly overlook or denounce a Muslim source even when they make complete common sense. Therefore, I accept their precondition, and tie my hand behind my back. Then I utilize their own accepted sources against them, from folks like Dr. Scheuer (who I would say is more an American protectionist/noninterventionalist than he is a hawk), the Indian Diplomat M K Bhadrakumar (since any pakistani source is automatically condemned), Matthew Hoh, Patrick Buchanon etc.

Basically you wish to fight falsehood with falsehood.

Good luck with that.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Your identity now is your passport?





Umm...

Che was a revolutionist. He took up arms and engaged in a real struggle.
Talk is cheap.
And you are far from being a che.



Maybe you could have been a citizen of those countries and felt the same way...and maybe not.
The fact is that now, you are.
Funny you should mention sulah jirgay...because that is exactly what Mullah Omar did with 700 elders and they found that there was no case against Bin Laden. There is no way Bin Laden could have executed such a sophisticated plan and you are going by what the Americans are saying without even looking at the evidence. So no you are not even doing that much. You are just going by the American way -"Guilty till proven innocent"






Basically you wish to fight falsehood with falsehood.

Good luck with that.

I did not say I was Che. I am not a fighter nor a monetary contributer to anything. I am discussing notions and ideas with you. People who take real actions are not sitting on PF debating with Matt Dresden. They could care less what he thinks.

I myself would agree with your commentary on the sullah jirga event. The young Mr. Rahmatullah Hashemi was at the event you note and told me about it first hand:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/ma...26taliban.html

As I stated though, its not falsehood at all to answer the question they ask with a simple: its irrelevelent, for the sake of discussion let us assume he did so.

It is the exact same answer to the question: Do you think Chavez is funding FARC? its irrelevent, for the sake of discussion let us assume he did so... what are your theories of why he did so?

Its the Socratic method and forces them to formulate an argument and back it with evidence that does not exist.

The fact that their own "hawks" write literature that admits our role in Arab Arab affairs and in trying to control resources, etc only creates a problem for their moral imperitive story line.