!!Dr. Michael Scheuer on Boston's Events!!

[SiiNii]

recognize that hypocrisy of the media, that specifically associates garbage activities with Muslims.

Sure indeed they realized that we should not constantly mention that the folks who kill innocent Palestenians are Jewish

, they would realize that one of the reasons say Saudi Arabia is so backwards is because we, the American people, with our tax-dollars, fund their tyrannical regime. One of the reasons the Palestinians throw rocks at you and me, when we visit them, is because we, the American people, fund their apartheid state,

Do you not think Muslims realize that they feel tortured?

For the last ten years I've been aware of this and don't disagree with you. Is the mainstream media going to change its stance of the last 40 years anytime soon? Condemn the MM all you want, they could care less.


Two things you can do to change opinions.

1. Counter mainstream and chickenhawk media with your own alternative media, in a form that is accessible, easy to understand, palatable and non-contradictory which brings me to number 2...

2. Stop using mainstream media language to counter mainstream media. "Islam is a religion of peace" - my brief, wikipedia study of the history of Islam tells me that Muhammad was a military commander, Islam was not always, but quite often spread thru conquest, and that the world is divided into a Dar as-Salam and a Dar al-Harb. Every time one of us hears "Islam is a religi..." our eyes start to roll and we think you're trying to dupe us into letting down our guard. Or at best we think 'He's one of the good ones but he doesn't understand his own religion".


So don't get dragged into long winded arguments or internet debates (sorry you misread my post and had to type all of that). Instead quickly counter in a way that won't cause us to put up our mental shields, then redirect to a source we're likely to lend an ear to without prejudice. Someone like:

[SiiNii]

Oh yeah, it would be a good idea to reel in over the top keyboard Mujahids like Al-Hanif who aren't helping at all.

e-Fatwa them if you have to. j/k

well 67% kidding.

[Manzareh]

I like the way Scheuer says "we should be there in short, violent bursts and then get out" more violent than they already are? The day the general public agree with such a man is the day America has lost its mind, sounds more of a savage threat to innocent people than any Taliban/al Qaida could be.

[SiiNii]

Do you have better ideas on what military forces are to be used for?

[Manzareh]

Do you have better ideas on what military forces are to be used for?

Yes. Military forces should only be used as self defence not a tool to invade, indoctrinate or murder hundreds of thousand people on the other side of the world. Military forces should be deployed to protect the people not encourage revenge based attacks.

[Joey_Gladstonezai]

Has Michael Scheuer converted to Islam?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

SiiNii,

There was an attempt to acquire media outlets by Al Jazeera, a station that actually bows down quiet a bit to Qatar's interest and does, for the most part tow the general BBC like like when it comes to Western interests. That was heavily rebuffed.

My own personal experience: And I am not saying this for any publicity or gain since I have been here at PF for a few years now and if I wanted prestige I could have said it then:

A few years ago, I met two staffers to then President George W Bush who would be reporting back to him. Alongside of them was a former FBI Director (i mean of the whole establishment). Both of the White House officials were former military. One was a historian at the Army College and the other a former SEAL. So I thought I was dealing with higher level thinkers.

I thought that by being upfront, honest, cogent, and providing documentation I could help them understand what was going on. By then, Imperial Hubris was on the shelves put out by then, Anonymous.

Here is the conversation verbatim as I recall it:

Staffer 1: What is your position on Guantanamo? (to the FBI director)

Former Director: If you recall my past positions were in line with the administration and are no longer.

Staffer 2 (the SEAL): Well but what about the fact that many who were released ended up back on the field against us.

Former Director: you have a point that I have pondered on, but when it comes to constitutional law and my knowledge of it and my view of the penal codes and the post Lincoln court case Ex Parte Milligan lead me in the direction opposite of my former thought process

I decide to listen most of the time to understand the demeaner of each person and to gauge how I will response.

Staffer 2: Its my opinion that the place requires expansion especially due to those captured in iraq now.

Former FBI director: You have been quiet. Do you have a position?

Myself: On Guantanamo Sir? I think thats a side issue relative to what the major overarching issues are. War is war, that much I understand. Opinions on paper are generally swept aside in the heat of the moment... even if the moment lasts years, but I think that theres something more pressing which is the reason that place exists in the first place.

Staffer 1: Howso?

Myself: There's apparently a book out from one of the CIA's men called Imperial Hubris and I think its important to read. It coallates the open source data on the motivations of those that you view are America's adversaries. It offers, as a scientist would, the analysis and then suggested ways forward including either dealing with the policies that instigated the conflageration in the initial or going Roman. It appears to be written by a very very smart person.

Staffer 1: Go on

Myself: Well, getting to the meat of the matter, there's a long history of conflict and turmoil between certain Eastern and Western powers... that much is true. But we have to pick a starting point for America's stances and involvement in the middle east and central asia. I would say that point was Operation Ajax Sir. That event set into sequence a series of events that would result in the stance iraq eventually took and that would end up in us setting up bases in the Saudi Peninsula. This in turn would lead to the sentiment that the very land that the Holy Prophet preached on was now occupied in the eyes of a rather large portion of the Muslim world. Imagine the response if say the Turks had occupied the Vatican or set up bases in Rome. While hadith literature exists indicating the point would come in which Islam would reach Constantinople and Rome, thats in scripture and about as similar to the Kingdom Concept Fundamentalist Christians hold. So the existence of a single tradition in the vast corpus of traditions is not enough to equate troops on the ground.

Staffer 2 is by now itching and turning red (The SEAL): Excuse me I just cannot stomach this at all. We are there at the LEGAL behest of the legitimate government of Saudi Arabia! (Veins are popping out in his head and he is standing up now with fists pumping on the table). We are there because that government approved our presence!

Staffer 1: Hey cool it (to his colleague)! (Turning to me): You have read on the history of warfare right?

Myself: Yes, but that history is there to guide our decisions so as not to replicate past mistakes. I tend to think that you have subordinates who were, just a few years back busy playing video games and serenading their girl friends with Nirvana songs. I think its gross negligence and inhumane to send them abroad to kill other people who are also living their lives and dont have anything to do with anything.

Staffer 1: You cannot have such an emotional stance on a set of logical perogitives. Lincoln for instance suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War.

Myself: Lincoln was fighting a war on his own soil in a dire move to preserve the federated statehood of the US. These are moves that diminish a republic and replace it with an empire.

Staffer 1: Power projection guaratees that our national security paradigms are constantly protected. Its a harsh world out there and idealists are not pragmatists in my experience.

Myself: I am sorry but I just think this is an attempt to legitimize something thats hard to render legitimate. Its putting a bandaid on the issue and you have no idea of how to even nation build. Look at Peshawar across the border... the British were masters of nation building right? They did it world around and left some institutions locally. That took them nearly a century on the frontier and Churchill still used to huff and puff about how they had to continuously put out fires on the frontier with the Afghan border. Lord Roberts burned the ground between Kabul and Qandahar and left quickly because he understood the challenges right? So putting those facts together... look at the books the British left behind on the region. These guys became so involved that they even learned subdialects like Wazir Pashto and left dictionaries lying around on the subject. Do you honestly think that Peshawar and the frontier province is a success story? I think Pakistan is a failed state for all intents and purposes. You saw the post WWII era contraction of the British empire even though they deemed that region as ESSENTIAL to their interests so that they could take on the Russian bear... is it not eerie that you are making the same arguments?

Staffer 2: (red in the face now): As I said before we are in regions at the behest of legitimate governments of the region. And its really people like you that should be turning in radicals in the country here that post a threat. How the hell do we know who "Anonymous" is? I find it disgusting that Imams can make speeches in mosques that are anti American and get away with it.

Myself: Sir, I have no idea how you connected what we were just talking about to local Imams. I have no interaction with local imams and spend about 95% of time in the hospital.

Staffer 2: This conversation is OVER. I dont want to hear another word out of you.

Staffer 1: (looking a bit apologetic): look calm down. We talked to Mortensen a few weeks ago and his sentiment and feedback wasn't too different.

Myself: Well I find that is a problem too. You dont need to be talking to me or Mortensen. You need to read the primary data in Imperial Hubris if you want to understand the problem and the tangible issues here as well as the history. Talking to Greg Mortensen is sort of like if the Japanese or some other group talked to Angelina Jolie about the common American perception. Its really irrelevent.

FBI director: Son, let me tell you a story (takes me aside): Back when our country was founded John Adams said that the greatest act of humanity he ever conducted was when Boston was aflame with revolutionary passions and he shielded some lower level Red Coats from harm by the mob. You get what I am saying?

Myself: No Sir, elaborate.

FBI director: In our Supreme Court building there is a sculpted figure of the Prophet Mohammad with the law code in his hand. There is no ill will specifically that Christian Americans bare Muslims... Thomas Jefferson had even read the Koran... historically one might say that the first insult involved the Morrocans taking on American Navy Vessel ships which is a large part of our Marine's song mentioning Tripoli.

So getting back to our story on John Adams... What I mean is that if the troops are in Saudi Arabia, the humane response would be for disgruntled locals to do as Adams did and understand that they are there on a mission and that higher level folks make that decision.

Myself: Sir, I get you now and allow me to respond with the practical points. John Adams was a white man... the British soldiers he shielded were white men. They were of a similar Christian background. They were brothers from teh same distant mother in a sense. Their differences were over tax codes and representation centrally in London. Now, my question for you is whether John Adams would have done the same with Morrocans or Chinese soldiers? Men with different looks, religious ideologies, and sensibilities? Why take a look at the view of various Europeans to other local folks who from time to time take a step onto their land, like the Russians versus the Germans... look at the inherent hatred. Now imagine that across kinship groups!

With respect to teh Barbary pirates, I have read that specific document in congressional records and find your argument troublesome for the following reason:

Jefferson and Adams were upset that a nation that was fledgling and new and that had done no wrong had elicited a religious based justification for aggression right? Well I would say that Sepulveda's arguments for the plundering of Latin America from its natives and the religious justifications provided by the ancestors of the American colonialists were in no way different. We do after all say, do unto others as we would have done unto ourselves? Tecumseh, were he to be resurrected, might have felt very similar to Adams and Jefferson were he to be asked about the subject.

FBI director: Well I think its time for lunch and I can see that you have offered some insights and some fruit for thought. I am glad that I retired years ago though and dont really have to confront this issue vis a vis policy making though.

Myself: Well, I hope that Congressman Paul and other like minded patriots can influence policy for the betterment of the world because I find this response I witnessed today rather worrisome. I felt like I was going to have an educated discussion and instead I really feel like your colleague over there was not ready to listen to anything except praise. So I feel this meeting has been very unfulfilling and pretty much useless. His point about the Saudi Government makes little sense since that government has many historical issues including human rights abuses.

Conversation ended uncomfortably.

So SiiNii, I feel like I did my part to no avail and I am sorry but I really feel like my ethnicity and religious background made these folks neglect the advice in favor of hubris.

All I can do now is practice my clinical care and be a scientist as I was all but told by Staffer 2, in a rather threatening tone, to not speak further.

For the last ten years I've been aware of this and don't disagree with you. Is the mainstream media going to change its stance of the last 40 years anytime soon? Condemn the MM all you want, they could care less.


Two things you can do to change opinions.

1. Counter mainstream and chickenhawk media with your own alternative media, in a form that is accessible, easy to understand, palatable and non-contradictory which brings me to number 2...

2. Stop using mainstream media language to counter mainstream media. "Islam is a religion of peace" - my brief, wikipedia study of the history of Islam tells me that Muhammad was a military commander, Islam was not always, but quite often spread thru conquest, and that the world is divided into a Dar as-Salam and a Dar al-Harb. Every time one of us hears "Islam is a religi..." our eyes start to roll and we think you're trying to dupe us into letting down our guard. Or at best we think 'He's one of the good ones but he doesn't understand his own religion".


So don't get dragged into long winded arguments or internet debates (sorry you misread my post and had to type all of that). Instead quickly counter in a way that won't cause us to put up our mental shields, then redirect to a source we're likely to lend an ear to without prejudice. Someone like:

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I like the way Scheuer says "we should be there in short, violent bursts and then get out" more violent than they already are? The day the general public agree with such a man is the day America has lost its mind, sounds more of a savage threat to innocent people than any Taliban/al Qaida could be.

Manzerah if you read his book he is like a scientist. In Marching Towards Hell he says what you said above but its pretty equitable to how an oncologist ought to handle a problem. If you have far stage cancer the oncologist says the following if he is good:

1. here is the data behind the treatments for your ailment.
2. Here then is your prognosis.
3. so now we can either palliate and treat your pain or we can minimally extend your life with therapies that arent really to great to tolerate.

Scheuer takes the data and says:

1. Here is what they are historically mad about. He slices through the crap that folks here generate like the myth that Hamid Gul invented the whole Islamic World's issues with "modernity." He provides quotes and info in the majority.

2. Here are our policies that may have contributed.

3. Now based on our current situation, we are in a war of attrition in which a less armed adversary is draining our economic energy and blood and resources... its like 1 million mosquites versus the elephant - its a strategy of insurgency warfare.

4. So now as the analyst (oncologist) we have three routes:

A) We do what we are doing which is going to cause huge economic problems and issues for the US
B) We use lethal Roman style warfare and utterly destroy the enemy as war is meant to be quick and lethal. Interventionalism and nation building have rarely yielded good results for the intervening nation.
C) We change the policies that are creating the motive and moral imperitive for these wars.

He strongly advocates C as it is most in line with what he feels is moral and best for US interests in the long term. He says specifically in Marching Toward Hell that he finds A and B unpalatable and unethical.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

PS: Toramana please keep your comments about bird beaks and crows and dipping beaks into feces out of this discussion unless you have something useful to add.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

SiiNii,

Here is another great analyst and social scientist, Dr. Robert Pape. He has collected the largest database to date on these sorts of lethal events and he provides excellent data as well as associated analysis.

Robert Pape - Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It (1 of 4) - YouTube

Watch all 4 parts.... I think you will find them elightening.