Posted on 02/11/2005 11:37:32 AM PST by JohnathanRGalt
Remember Michael Scheuer? He's the former CIA analyst who penned an anonymous book called "Imperial Hubris" attacking the Bush administration's approach to terrorism. When we last saw him, in November, he was explaining to Tim Russert that American support for Israel is to blame for anti-American terrorism, and that Osama bin Laden is "in many ways . . . an admirable man."....
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
You and your friend are absolutely right. This hyper-sensitivity to our own ethnicity is a byproduct of political correctness which of course comes from the left.
As a Jew,I'll laugh as hard as anybody at a good "Jewish" joke. I think we all need to loosen up a bit. The MSM is always onthe lookout for some perceived or imagined offense directed at some ethnic group, except of course against Christians. Once again, it all comes down to politics.
There's a lot about al-Qaeda's use of the internet in Imperial Hubris. An entire chapter and many other sections in the book. Both Scheuer and Richard Clarke, the Bush administration's former counter-terrorism coordinator (who also wrote a 'tell-all' book) clearly understood the key importance of the internet to facilitate Al-Qaeda's terror plans.
I disagree strongly with Scheuer's tactics. However, my opinion doesn't count and Scheuer was the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit.
I believe Al-Qaeda's cyber-security threat is vastly overrated as well as 'spy' uses such as steganography for covert communications. Terrorists want to be understood.
Terrorism is done out in the open. After the terrorist act occurs they usually claim credit over the net. A beheadding has very little impact unless it's broadcast to the world. People need to realize that Al-Qaeda uses the net for recruitment, propaganda, incitement, fundraising, extortion, intimidation, .... etc. right out in the open -- in plain English (or Arabic, French, Urdu, Malay...).
The sites are easily traced, the credit cards paying for the site are on file at the ISP as well as the IP address of the terrorists uploading content are in the server logs. So why keep the thousands of terror sites on line? If they're keeping the sites online so they can be 'monitored' -- then why doesn't the CIA monitor the sites? (Instead of writing 'tell-all' books) If some hypothetical Arabic translator in some cube in the bowels of Langley is actually translating the terrorist statements off those sites -- they why isn't it being published so the U.S. citizens paying for it can become aware of what's going on.
My pal also considers it a matter of maturity, meaning specifically the luni-left & the rest of the world has a lot of growing up to do.
But, not to worry, the mature are out there everywhere.
It's just the crying snout nosed babies tend to be noticed because the make so much more needless noise.
I doubt you've read the book, Galt - you strike me more as someone who relies upon the ignorance of others to BS your way through a thread.
Where at all does Scheuer talk about steganography?
He's discussing Al Qaeda's use of legitimate websites to advance it's vision, and the proliferation of non-Al Qaeda affiliated websites which are also profitting Al Qaeda by providing a pan-Islamic electronic village in which Al Qaeda's activities, aims, and methods can be discussed. Further, he points out that Al Qaeda's paradoxical embrace of modernity has done away with their need for bases or safe-havens: terrorism is now an at home project, from gathering information, to planning and training for attacks.
And what are you talking about? You're going to call for our censoring non-Al Qaeda affiliated foreign websites, thereby strengthening Al Qaeda's claim to American duplicity in regards to the Muslim world "One standard for Americans, another for Muslims", and for doing what exactly to sites like Al-Neda and Al-Ansar, which have been shut down, only to reappear elsewhere in various forms (even on hijacked State of Arkansas servers)? More of the same?
Thanks for the fresh new approach, John.
Why don't you read those pages you've scanned and OCR'd, m'kay? It would save me the trouble of paraphrasing passages from the book (p79-80).
What does that have to do with us?
Without America, Israel's existence is somewhat tenuous - think back on the Yom Kippur war and our resupply operations, or our Veto of UN resolutions aimed against Israel.
You brought up expanded settlements. I ask again, what does that have to do with us.
Gotcha, you are bad.
Not to mention the fact that no two have the same opinion ;)
You, and I refrain from calling you sir, are a paskudniak.
We are seen as Israel's enablers in the Arab world, and to a large extent that is not an incorrect view.
What about "John" ? ;)
Sorry you have to stoop to such a level. I would hope that is not a true indication of your character.
You have a great propensity for being an irritant.
I can understand how he comes to the conclusions however. He must have known my late grandfather.
Thankfully my father did not pass it on to me.
I would not let him.
Quite true, but the cause is the same cause that brought this author to his erroneous conclusions in both cases of error.
Those with thin skins are rather hypocritical when taking up others bandwidth complaining about "intolerance".
To quote Carol Broslofski: "What what what?!"
Help me out here hoss.
Aw geez! And all this time I was being told it was the Masons!
That has always been a Baptist diversion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.