It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tactics of Fighting Jihad

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   
President Bush's new comments on Iraq:

"They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war, and they know we will prevail." www.whitehouse.gov... (hows this for a source UM Gazz)

Is Iraq the modern day Roman Colosseum? It seems this tactic of fighting abroad will eventually cause a backlash once terrorists adapt to U.S. strategy. If terrorism picks up across Europe or perhaps U.S. soil, will another invasion take place, or another Colosseum be built to draw Jihadist crowds?




posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   
He's been saying that since we went into Afghanistan. This is nothing new--and his tactics are right!! But we ALSO must realize that there are groups here in the US that would like to, and may eventually attack us here.

As far as your question about the "Roman Coloseum": the answer is nope. We went into Iraq because there was genuine concern by several intelligence agencies (here and abroad) and BOTH parties, that Saddam had WMD. Taking Iraq when we did made sense to keep thoses WMD out of the hands of Islamists such as Al Queda.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
As far as your question about the "Roman Coloseum": the answer is nope. We went into Iraq because there was genuine concern by several intelligence agencies (here and abroad) and BOTH parties, that Saddam had WMD. Taking Iraq when we did made sense to keep thoses WMD out of the hands of Islamists such as Al Queda.



Well you're mistaken about why we went into Iraq, and it's amusing that there are still individuals out there who actually still believe the old propaganda like youself. We went into Iraq to seize commodities due to OPEC screwing with our economy for the past forty years, and to have an Area of Operations to fight Islamic Jihad. If you read the New American Century reports you might understand the failed strategy of fighting Jihad. I say failed becuase it's a band-aid, rather than a long term solution. On the commodity issue, you're seeing high gas prices at the pump, not becasuse were running out of oil, or "peak oil", but because Saudi Arabia has cut production and raised prices to make up for the U.S. now owning the largest oil contracts on the planet. I say largest, since there is no proof that Iraqi oil fields are second to the Saudi fields, as they have not even been tapped yet. At any rate, Americans are being punished by the Sauds, for taking their OPEC member away from them, and due to the fact we will be buying much less from them in the future. Hence, the little guys like me and you, suffer at the pump now.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Why we're in Iraq is old news. What's not old news is the strategy. In comparison with the Roman Colosseum, Iraq is a place where gladiators can duke it out to keep those warriors from going someplace else. It's an attraction. Instead of going to disney land Jihadists can go to Iraq and get experience fighting real gladiators. I believe if we see an increase in terrorism, that this will be a continued policy - create another Colosseum. A new president in the White House will do little to change strategy as the Think Tanks determine a great amount of policy within the White House.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
vincere7;

High gas prices in the US are not because the Saudi's have cut production--in fact they've increased production to the point where they're near maximum capacity. It's because of worldwide demand, including burgeoning economies such as India and China. It's also because the US hasn't built a new refinery in over 30 years, coupled with local regulatory requirements to have different cocktails of fuels to meet EPA guidlines.

You're belief about Iraq, its oil, and why we're there is completely off the mark and hardly worthy of comment.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
High gas prices in the US are not because the Saudi's have cut production--in fact they've increased production to the point where they're near maximum capacity. It's because of worldwide demand, including burgeoning economies such as India and China. It's also because the US hasn't built a new refinery in over 30 years, coupled with local regulatory requirements to have different cocktails of fuels to meet EPA guidlines.

You're belief about Iraq, its oil, and why we're there is completely off the mark and hardly worthy of comment.


I see you only know what you read about the commodities. Your oil opinions are as bad as your Iraqi fantasies. I assure you Saudi Arabia is not at peak production. Your comment on refineries is laughable. You're a child of propaganda my poor boy. The refinery excuse was born through the Venezuela cook off. I'm sure you have no idea what I'm talking about. Hardly worth comment? Maybe if you put something out there that has less to do with opinion and bred propaganda and more to do with reality your comments would have some weight. At this point I highly doubt you can be "re-educated".



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

As far as your question about the "Roman Coloseum": the answer is nope. We went into Iraq because there was genuine concern by several intelligence agencies (here and abroad) and BOTH parties, that Saddam had WMD. Taking Iraq when we did made sense to keep thoses WMD out of the hands of Islamists such as Al Queda.


You are only telling half the story. The CIA, MI6, and the DIA all thought it likely Saddam had WMD's BUT they recommended containment as the best method to prevent Saddam from selling or using those WMDs.

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by vincere7
It seems this tactic of fighting abroad will eventually cause a backlash once terrorists adapt to U.S. strategy. If terrorism picks up across Europe or perhaps U.S. soil, will another invasion take place, or another Colosseum be built to draw Jihadist crowds?



On "Inside 9/11" last night, there was a man who talked about Bin Laden's plan for having a war with the US. He said that Bin Laden had told him that fighting a war on US soil would be too hard for his people. They had to do something big enough to provoke the U.S. to come to Afghanistan where the guerillas would have a chance to defeat the US army. That was the original plan of 9/11. To make the US come to him…

Hmmm…



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
You are only telling half the story. The CIA, MI6, and the DIA all thought it likely Saddam had WMD's BUT they recommended containment as the best method to prevent Saddam from selling or using those WMDs.

-koji K.



They can make all the recommendations they want. Ultimately, decisions relating to our nation's security falls on the shoulders of one man--the President. And given the poor performance our intelligence agencies have demonstrated in the years leading up to 9/11, I wouldn't trust their recommendations.

I'm no personal fan of President Bush. But he's been consistent by stating all along that we were taking the fight to them. There's no doubt in my mind that if given the opportunity, Saddam would have delivered WMD into the hands of terrorists to be used against us. Saddam's reputation of thumbing his nose at the UN resolutions since the gulf war and his siphoning of Billions of dollars from the oil-for-food program indicated he had no interest in reforming his dictatorship to fall in line with what the world expected of him. He was a danger and a menace and needed to be removed.

The "It's the oil, stupid!" mantra constantly delivered by Michael Moore wannabes doesn't hold water as we haven't enjoyed the fruits of that oil since we've been in Iraq. The stated goal is and always has been, to remove Saddam Hussein, put in place an elected government that can forge a new Constitution; place their security in their own hands--and get the hell out. And so far, there has been nothing to convince me otherwise. I suggest that if you disagree, you ask ANY soldier, enlisted and commissioned, to explain why we are there.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
I'm no personal fan of President Bush. But he's been consistent by stating all along that we were taking the fight to them.


Yup, he sure has. Did you read my post above? That's just what Bin Laden wanted us to do!



The "It's the oil, stupid!" mantra constantly delivered by Michael Moore wannabes doesn't hold water as we haven't enjoyed the fruits of that oil since we've been in Iraq.


Nobody is claiming that you or we would enjoy the fruits of that oil! The oil isn't for us! It's for the corporations, like Haliburton.

Edit to add link: www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 22-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by vincere7

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
High gas prices in the US are not because the Saudi's have cut production--in fact they've increased production to the point where they're near maximum capacity. It's because of worldwide demand, including burgeoning economies such as India and China. It's also because the US hasn't built a new refinery in over 30 years, coupled with local regulatory requirements to have different cocktails of fuels to meet EPA guidlines.

You're belief about Iraq, its oil, and why we're there is completely off the mark and hardly worthy of comment.



I see you only know what you read about the commodities. Your oil opinions are as bad as your Iraqi fantasies. I assure you Saudi Arabia is not at peak production. Your comment on refineries is laughable. You're a child of propaganda my poor boy. The refinery excuse was born through the Venezuela cook off. I'm sure you have no idea what I'm talking about. Hardly worth comment? Maybe if you put something out there that has less to do with opinion and bred propaganda and more to do with reality your comments would have some weight. At this point I highly doubt you can be "re-educated".




Can you provide a place where you got all this secret information? Are you a member of the Saudi Royal Family? Just curious as to where one would find the exact level of Saudi Arabia's oil ouput currently if what they say is wrong.


[edit on 8/22/2005 by rstrik]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

They can make all the recommendations they want. Ultimately, decisions relating to our nation's security falls on the shoulders of one man--the President. And given the poor performance our intelligence agencies have demonstrated in the years leading up to 9/11, I wouldn't trust their recommendations.

I'm no personal fan of President Bush. But he's been consistent by stating all along that we were taking the fight to them. There's no doubt in my mind that if given the opportunity, Saddam would have delivered WMD into the hands of terrorists to be used against us. Saddam's reputation of thumbing his nose at the UN resolutions since the gulf war and his siphoning of Billions of dollars from the oil-for-food program indicated he had no interest in reforming his dictatorship to fall in line with what the world expected of him. He was a danger and a menace and needed to be removed.

The "It's the oil, stupid!" mantra constantly delivered by Michael Moore wannabes doesn't hold water as we haven't enjoyed the fruits of that oil since we've been in Iraq. The stated goal is and always has been, to remove Saddam Hussein, put in place an elected government that can forge a new Constitution; place their security in their own hands--and get the hell out. And so far, there has been nothing to convince me otherwise. I suggest that if you disagree, you ask ANY soldier, enlisted and commissioned, to explain why we are there.


If we were fighting this war over the WMD threat, we would have been focusing our military strength on Pakistan and the newer 'stans, rather than Iraq. Pakistan is the number one proliferator of WMD technologies to terrorists, even under Musharaff's ISI.

The lack of an exit strategy doesn't convince you that we plan to do other than "get the hell out"? We'll withdraw troop numbers, for sure, but we will have bases in Iraq for the foreseeable future. This is in keeping with the real motives for invading Iraq- they were strategic, not tactical. The powers that be feel that we need to have a presence in that region despite the costs, and have said as much in policy statements (the PNAC report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" directly contradicts your view, saying "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.")

America has not been made safer from WMD's by taking out only one potential supplier. The "logic" of invading Iraq to get the WMD's was merely the pretense needed to support a war with goals too far removed from people's daily concerns to support otherwise. History has shown us this is how unpopular wars are started time and time again.

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Vincere7,

I agree with what you say, but isn't one of the reasons why we are in Iraq is due to the fact that Saddam wanted to make all oil transactions in Euros and not US Dollars? Would that have a negative impact on the US economy, especially if other nations started doing the same thing? Was Saddam hedging his investments or was it a deliberate poke in the eye of the US?



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
If I may quote from Michael Herr's book Dispatches on Vietnam...

'...Roof of the Rex, ground zero, men who looked like they'd been suckled by wolves, they could die right there and their jaws would work for another half-hour. This is where they asked you, 'Are you a Dove or a Hawk?' and 'Would you rather fight them here (Nam) or Pasadena?' Maybe we could beat them in Pasadena, I'd think, but I wouldn't wouldn't say it, especially not here where they knew that I knew that they weren't really fighting anybody anywhere anyway...'

so I'd say the strategy is pretty old news too

[edit on 22-8-2005 by nexus6]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by nexus6
If I may quote from Michael Herr's book Dispatches on Vietnam...

[edit on 22-8-2005 by nexus6]


Damn good book! Please feel free to quote as much as you want from it.
I reread Dispatches at least once a year, it's that good. Just wanted to say.

Anyway, back to the topic...

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
They had to do something big enough to provoke the U.S. to come to Afghanistan where the guerillas would have a chance to defeat the US army. That was the original plan of 9/11. To make the US come to him…


This is what you call "wishful thinking". This was possibly thrown around by Laden, along with dozens of scenarios. It's not plausible, as there was no reaction. If you know anything about tactics, you strike to initiate. Well after the strike there was no initiation, only on our part.



Originally posted by rstrik
Can you provide a place where you got all this secret information? Are you a member of the Saudi Royal Family? Just curious as to where one would find the exact level of Saudi Arabia's oil ouput currently if what they say is wrong.


There is nothing secret about my information. If it was secret I wouldn't be sharing the info. I admit it is difficult to find Saudi output as the DOE doesn't like to show our vulnerability. One should keep excellent sources, especially on commodities, of which all is public information if you wish to get off your arse and look for yourself. "Seek and you shall find." What do you want from me, the last forty years of output? Go look at the Department of Energy files for yourself. One thing is for sure, if you do, you will no longer question why gas prices are so high.


www.eia.doe.gov...



Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
Vincere7,

I agree with what you say, but isn't one of the reasons why we are in Iraq is due to the fact that Saddam wanted to make all oil transactions in Euros and not US Dollars? Would that have a negative impact on the US economy, especially if other nations started doing the same thing? Was Saddam hedging his investments or was it a deliberate poke in the eye of the US?


No this wasn't recourse. We never started seriously importing Iraqi oil until the 90's. 2001 was our biggest oil import ever, and that was about 795,000 bbl average per day compared to the Saudi's 1.6 million per day and Venezuela about as equal. We import more oil from Nigeria than we do Iraq, however we know what's there. That's the whole point - Iraq has surplus' equal to the Sauds, and we have been trying to tap them since the 40's.

Remember, Iraq nationalized oil in 1972. British Petroleum, Royal Dutch-Shell, Compagnie Francaise des Petroles, Mobil and Standard Oil of New Jersey (now Exxon) owned conessions valued at over one billion dollars. They got screwed. When this happened Saudia Arabia specifically stopped other OPEC nations from increasing production, to screw us further. The following year Iran followed suit. The OPEC cartel, after raising prices and sending our economy into a tailspin, used oil as a weapon and called for withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied Arab lands. All Israeli friends were enemies, including the U.S. OPEC embargoed America and Europe. This is something they don't tell you in the history books. This little episode lasted a decade. Remember interest rates at 18%? OPEC's oil weapon was very successful.

That's when we started the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which Bush filled for the first time in history to the maximum this year, 700,000,000 bbls. You remember photos of Bush walking hand in hand with King Fahd. That wasn't just in his pocketbook interest but for National Security. We have been tired of kissing arse for thirty years.




[edit on 22-8-2005 by vincere7]



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
The UN voted 99% that Saddam would either let all of the inspectors in or Saddam would be removed. He'd still be killing people, going from Palace to Palace had he complied with the whole entire UN. The good news is we have found weapons of mass destruction : Kofi, his son and most of the UN. This cannot be denied.

Sure enough we win the war and people are calling us Romans. They also like to pretend
this is a new Vietnam. Can you imagine that ? A new Vietnam. I have noticed that most people who don't like Bush love to dribble on and on about Vietnam. And then there are the Roman Empire/Crusader bit's to " fill-in " the rest of the nonsense. To imagine this war is over oil is beyond silly. This is a religious war, nothing more.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by BLUBBER
To imagine this war is over oil is beyond silly. This is a religious war, nothing more.


Religion is just one agenda as is oil. Oil is the very commodity that holds our economy together. Religion is used to move masses to posess commodities. You probably didn't notice, but in 2001, before we invaded Iraq, we imported the most oil from Iraq in history that year. Here is the question for you brilliant individuals. How is it we point the finger at Koffi Anon and the EU when the U.S. imported more oil in 2001 than any other year? Oil for food?

Back on topic. The Jihad war has all to do with the oil war. OPEC is an Islamic cartel that controls over 25% of the world's oil supply. When Jihad was declared against the U.S. and Britain, do you think OPEC is not involved in the Jihad? OPEC has control over our economy. Taking Iraq is common sense strategy for securing economic security for the future.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by BLUBBER
To imagine this war is over oil is beyond silly. This is a religious war, nothing more.


Then you my friend must have been in hibernation if you think that.

Look at the logistics of things here. Terrorism was announced as the onslaught of the War in Iraq.
The WMD's were never found. (did they actually exist?)

We went to War to get Saddamn out of power. We have done that, so why are we still there? We are fighting terrorism right? Wrong.......

Its always been about oil. Control the Worlds oil, and you have control of the World.

Religion has nothing to do with the War, unless you are a terrorist promoting the meaning of the word Jihad. Even then you would be wrong, buts that another story that has been covered before.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by vincere7
All Israeli friends were enemies, including the U.S. OPEC embargoed America and Europe. This is something they don't tell you in the history books. This little episode lasted a decade. Remember interest rates at 18%? OPEC's oil weapon was very successful.

[edit on 22-8-2005 by vincere7]


Some very sobering thoughts indeed, my friend.

"He who controls the spice, controls the Universe."




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join