al Qaeda’s intended goal

07 Sep 2011 at 22:22

Michael K. Pate

Terror

No Comments

I had not heard this idea before.

There are reasons to believe that this effect was al Qaeda’s intended goal of the 9/11 attacks.  By provoking America into military action against Muslim targets, al Qaeda hoped to revive the age-old narrative of the crusading West and to drive the Muslim people into the arms of al Qaeda’s vision of a purely traditional Islamic society devoid of liberal or Western elements. – Steven Kull

That conflicted with the theory I was more familiar with.

The point of citing Somalia in the run up to 9-11 is that bin Laden told Fortune Magazine in a 1999 interview that the precipitous American pullout after Black Hawk Down convinced him that Americans would not stand up to armed resistance. – Dick Morris

I couldn’t find a link to the Fortune article, but I did locate some other material.

As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim. – Osama Bin Laden 

It is an interesting theory that Kull offers. But I wonder if he has any evidence to support it.

Secret Conspiracies of Seymour Hersh

21 Jan 2011 at 21:32

Michael K. Pate

Black Helicopters

No Comments

Can you trust what Seymour Hersh writes?

Relying almost exclusively on vaguely described anonymous sources, he makes sweeping claims about top-secret operations that can only be known to a small number of people inside the government with access to the relevant “sensitive compartmented information” and “special access programs,” and they aren’t allowed to comment one way or the other. And his “reporting” is always colored by a sixties-leftist, anti-American, conspiratorial worldview. – Max Boot

Or what he says?

Then there’s Sy. He’s the public speaker, the pundit. On the podium, Sy is willing to tell a story that’s not quite right, in order to convey a Larger Truth. “Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people,” Hersh told me. “I can’t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say.” – Chris Suellentrop

Perhaps he spends too much time reading Dan Brown novels?

He then alleged that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who headed JSOC before briefly becoming the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, and his successor, Vice Adm. William McRaven, as well as many within JSOC, “are all members of, or at least supporters of, Knights of Malta.” Hersh may have been referring to the Sovereign Order of Malta, a Roman Catholic organization commited to “defence of the Faith and assistance to the poor and the suffering,” according to its website. “Many of them are members of Opus Dei,” Hersh continued. “They do see what they’re doing — and this is not an atypical attitude among some military — it’s a crusade, literally. They see themselves as the protectors of the Christians. They’re protecting them from the Muslims [as in] the 13th century. And this is their function.” – Blake Hounshell

I realize that making Opus Dei out to be some sort of sinister organization out for world domination may be fashionable but it isn’t very accurate.

With a touch of humour, Father Soria stresses that there are no monks or nuns, albino or otherwise, in Opus Dei. “There are about two thousand of us priests in Opus Dei. The rest of the members are lay men and women, both married and single.” He wants to emphasize Opus Dei’s fundamentally lay character, and its mission to help people turn their work, relationships, and daily activities into opportunities to grow closer to God, to serve others, and to improve society. – Maria Olaguera

I think I am going to continue to question his “reporting.”

Glenn Greenwald and the Mainstream

19 Jan 2011 at 20:15

Michael K. Pate

Black Helicopters

No Comments

Remember back when War Crimes for the Bush Administration were all but assured?

But with these new, unprecedentedly stark revelations, this facade will be increasingly difficult to maintain. It is already the case, as the Times Editorial today notes, that “all but President Bush’s most unquestioning supporters [i.e., this] recognized the chain of unprincipled decisions that led to the abuse, torture and death in prisons run by the American military and intelligence services.” That leaves only two choices: (1) treat these crimes as the serious war crimes they are by having a Prosecutor investigate and, if warranted, prosecute them, or (2) openly acknowledge — to ourselves and the world — that we believe that our leaders are literally entitled to commit war crimes at will, and that we — but not the rest of the world — should be exempt from the consequences. The clearer it becomes that those are the only two choices, the more difficult it will be to choose option (2), and either way, there is great benefit just from having that level of clarity and candor about what we are really doing. – Demands for war crimes prosecutions are now growing in the mainstream

Amazingly enough, that never actually happened. And what is now the mainstream view?

Conservatives would love to bash Obama for being weak on Terrorism so that, in the event of another attack, they can blame him (and Cheney, in last night’s interview, left open that possibility by suggesting Obama may suffer from unknown failures). If it were at all possible, they’d be out accusing him of abandoning critical programs that Keep us Safe; that’s what they do best. But they cannot with a straight face claim that Obama has abandoned their core approach, so they do the only thing they can do: acknowledge that he has continued and strengthened it and point out that it proves they were right — and he was wrong — all along. If Obama has indeed changed his mind over the last two years as a result of all the Secret Scary Things he’s seen as President, then I genuinely believe that he and the Democratic Party owe a heartfelt, public apology to Bush, Cheney and the GOP for all the harsh insults they spewed about them for years based on policies that they are now themselves aggressively continuing. – The vindication of Dick Cheney

Or was it perhaps the mainstream view all along and some people were just confused?

Krugmanish Moralities

19 Jan 2011 at 20:05

Michael K. Pate

Politics

No Comments

One thing that inspired me to start up again was this.

One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate. The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty. – Paul Krugman

If only things were that simple.

I can’t speak for everyone on the right or in the Tea Party movement, but the issue isn’t about taxing, it is about spending. President Obama has increased the National Debt by $3,381,066,487,958 since taking office. Under George W. Bush, it increased $4,899,100,310,609.

It really doesn’t matter what we think or should do. It matters what we can afford.

Hiatus Over

19 Jan 2011 at 19:54

Michael K. Pate

Site

No Comments

I was kind of burned out after the 2004 election and I decided to take some time off from blogging.

So, like, I am back now. Hope I didn’t miss too much.

False, Exaggerated

05 Nov 2004 at 16:46

Michael K. Pate

Politics

Comments Off

The Democrats just lost an election because no one believed all the ridiculous lies they told. Did they learn anything from this?

No matter whom you talk to outside our circles, begin to perpetuate the (false, exaggerated) notion that George Bush’s victory was built not merely on values issues, but gay marriage specifically. If you feel a need to broaden it slightly, try depicting the GOP as a majority party synonymous with gay-haters, warmongers and country-clubbers. Because I, for one, am tired of hearing whiny complaints from conservatives that, not only do I not have values, but that I fail to properly respect the values of people who are all too happy to buy into, no less perpetuate, inaccurate caricatures of the 54+ million Americans who voted Tuesday for John Kerry. – Tom Schaller

Apparently not.

What to do with a mandate

05 Nov 2004 at 10:05

Michael K. Pate

Politics

Comments Off

Now that the President has a clear mandate after this last election, he has to decide what to do with it.

Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. – George W. Bush

The opposition will be fierce.

Progressives have only one course of action now: React quickly to every outrage—red state types love to cheat and intimidate, so we have to assume the worst and call them on it every time. – Jane Smiley

And bitter.

Had Kerry gotten us out of Iraq, he would’ve been blamed for “losing the war”. Now Bush will ineptly lose it for himself. – Markos Moulitsas

Oh, and have lots of advice.

First, President Bush needs to avoid appointing ultra conservative judges. Judicial extremists who are completely out of the main stream. – Dan Abrams

Lots of advice.

Instead of nominating controversial and outspoken conservatives who are sure to spark bitter challenges, Bush should begin his new term nominating acceptable conservative jurists. Let Bush show the country he wants to nominate the best justices, not the most conservative justices. – Debra J. Saunders

But let us be realistic.

Avoiding the Whig Fate

04 Nov 2004 at 22:44

Michael K. Pate

Politics

Comments Off

Some Democrats knew what would happen.
bq. This election validated not just freedom, but also the faith our Founding Fathers placed in average folks to navigate the course of this great nation. By weighing the greatest issues at the gravest times and choosing our path, ordinary people have again accomplished extraordinary things. With courage and caution, rather than fear and timidity, the voters chose a path to ensure others would enjoy the same freedom to set their own path. – “Zell Miller(I tried to tell you)”:http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1104/04edmiller.html
Some understand what happened.
bq. Most basically, the Democratic strategists do not trust the American people. They do not believe that Americans will respond to a well-thought-out, open and honest discussion of the profound questions that vex our society. In fact Americans are hungry to be engaged about these issues. Just note what the “market” say by way of the political books on the best-seller list, the success of movies about politics, and the strength of both talk radio and Fox television. People love this stuff. – “James Moore(The five most important things the Democrats did wrong)”:http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/jim/2004/11/03#a896
Some haven’t a clue.
bq. But best of all, we’ll continue to see this great resurgence in progressive activism – the kind not seen in American politics in over a generation. None of these new activists heeded the call to arms only to abandon the fight today. We are energised, and will continue to fight for a better future for our country. – “Markos Moulitsas(Divide and rule for now)”:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/markosmoulitsas/story/0,15139,1342263,00.html
The only question is now, which of the views above prevail? Because if it is the last one, you will be able to substitute the word “Democrats” for “Whigs” in the paragraph below.
bq. Ultimately, however, the Whigs are best understood as an American major party trying to be many things to many men, ready to abandon one deeply held “conviction” for another in the drive for political power. The party died not because its unique aura no longer appealed to voters but because it could not cope effectively or persuasively with what after the Compromise of 1850 became the great issue of American politics, the expansion of slavery. – “The Reader’s Companion to American History(Whig Party)”:http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_091900_whigparty.htm

Some Personal Notes

01 Nov 2004 at 20:40

Michael K. Pate

Missives

Comments Off

1. After spending the first twenty years of my voting life as a Democrat, I became a Republican a few months ago. When I first registered, my parents had impressed upon me that if I wanted to vote in the primaries, I had to be a Democrat. That has now changed 180 degrees. But I have “left my old party behind(My Protest Vote)”:http://www.thirdsuperpower.com/previously/2004/03/10/01/07/, and I can’t see myself ever going back.
2. I won’t be voting for George W. Bush tomorrow. Why? Because I voted for him two weeks ago? Take that, Senator.
3. My “Prediction(Pre-Election Self Serve Linkfest)”:http://wizbangblog.com/archives/004152.php? Bush takes the Electoral College with at least 300, Republicans retain control of the House, and gain at least +2 in the Senate. I feel just as confident as I did last time I “picked(MoveOn Primary Prediction)”:http://www.thirdsuperpower.com/previously/2003/06/27/09/18/ a candidate.

Lost in Translation

01 Nov 2004 at 16:50

Michael K. Pate

Uncategorized

Comments Off

After September 11th, one noted philospher observed this.
bq. Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who did not vote for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes’ destination of California — these were places that voted against Bush! – “Michael Moore(A Real Solution)”:http://www.thirdsuperpower.com/previously/2004/08/04/00/17/
This statement may or may not agree with the above.
bq. Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn’t play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security. – “Osama Bin Laden(Full transcript of bin Ladin’s speech)”:http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm
This version is more clear.
bq. Your security is in your own hands, and any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security. – “Osama Bin Laden(Osama Bin Laden Tape Threatens U.S. States Not to Vote for Bush)”:http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SA1404
Of course, trusting in the word of a man responsible for the death of thousands is a mighty dangerous thing to do.
–
It seems that we have the chance to consult with an expert.
bq. There he was, OBL, all tan and rested and on videotape (hey, did you get the feeling that he had a bootleg of my movie? Are there DVD players in those caves in Afghanistan?) – “Michael Moore(One Day Left)”:http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-11-01

← Older Entries