From: Hermit (hidden@lucifer.com)
Date: Thu Sep 12 2002 - 00:43:28 MDT
Joe McPees still suffering from diarrhea, thundered "The spectacularly-wrong-on-Afghanistan Hermit is spectacularly wrong again; I have had nothing whatsoever to drink today."
Mr Joe McPees might not be drunk, and the noticeable deterioration in his writing may just be another symptom of his collapsing mental state, but his assertions with ever more strident adjectives that I am wrong on Afghanistan need to be viewed with some jaundice as his increasing recourse to lying under pressure should make self-evident.
So far my predictions about such a war's inability to deal with terrorism - or indeed exaccerbation of it, the fact that it would not much affect the ability of al Qu'aeda to operate but would harm the ability to act against them, the number of civilian casualties, the amount of ammunition expended per guerilla, US casualties per guerilla and the lack of any fundamental change in Afghanistan seem to be right on the nose. As is my prediction that US actions and unilateralism would fuel anti-American sympathy, and that in consequence it would be a very long war... for which support might well be lacking. Only time will tell. In any case, your "crowing" is premature.
Authorities believe the core of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network has been scattered and weakened by the U.S.-led war on terrorism but officials say the number of sympathizers eager to further the cause of Muslim holy war may be growing a year after the devastating attacks of Sept. 11.
But the dispersal has led to what counterterrorism officials describe as a decentralized network of operatives, affiliate groups and individual cells turning to their own devices to plot attacks.
U.S. officials say the result may mean less spectacular and complicated plots than the Sept. 11 attacks, but experts warn the new situation could complicate the future of the war.
"They're split up, hard to reach and all over the world now," said Daniel Mulvenna, a counterterrorism expert at the Center for Counterintelligence and Security Studies in suburban Washington. "They've gone to places where they know the environments well, they can blend in and plan future attacks and I suspect they will."
Even worse, others say, is that the new situation gives al-Qaida's followers an opportunity to recruit in new places and strengthen ties with militant groups who enjoyed support from the network in the past. In the last year, members of a half dozen militant groups fighting for Muslim causes in Bosnia, Southeast Asia and North Africa have been arrested and linked to al-Qaida.
"It is a mistake to see the threat as merely coming from al-Qaida," said Jean-Louis Bruguiere, France's renowned anti-terror judge. "There are other groups. They may be loosely linked to al-Qaida, but they do not have the same chain of command, or the same chief."
...the U.S. operation appears to be fueling hostility, even among allies who complain the Americans have relied on faulty information that has caused injury and death to civilians.
That in turn is increasing support for militant organizations, including the Hezb-i-Islami movement of Hekmatyar, who has called for holy war against the Americans and who is suspected of involvement in a recent car bombing that killed 30 people in Kabul."Al-Qaida Still Considered Dangerous (http://www.kabuldaily.com/p/df/eb17ad22ed99.html?id=ee4b49)
"Nevertheless, the real lesson of the terrorist attacks a year ago is that even the world's only superpower is vulnerable. If the US wants to live in a more secure world, it will have to accept, sooner or later, that international problems such as terrorism require multilateral solutions." http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=2747014&thesection=news&thesubsection=dialogue&reportID=61564nt article altogether).
http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/attachments/billysgoldfish.jpg
Apropos of something, for an excellent look at how your current shitstorm of badly researched articles fails to make the case, any better than you did in Afghanistan, you can see some questions about the current strategy at your favorite newsbite source, Confusion over Iraqi nuke report (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/07/bush.blair/index.html) and from the UN Top arms official sees no solid case against Iraq (http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/TGAM/20020911/UUNITN/Headlines/headdex/headdexInternational_temp/5/5/27/) - and from a source you have claimed is "legitimate" (and I notice that you continue to "decry" e.g. The Guardian, while simultaneously asserting that the source is irrelevant when others note that yours appear to be intent on showing Attilla up as an amiable left-wing stooge)Bush lacks proof to justify Iraq war, US politicians say (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-411875,00.html). And here are Kofi Annan's comments this morning...
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=worldnews&StoryID=1439139erhaps he read some of the above.
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=26507>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:57 MDT
