"The Farce is weak in this one..."
Posted on 02/22/2005 4:17:49 AM PST by strategofr
I am simply cross-posting a message I just put up on strategypage.com. The story behind the message is, there is a good guy named Sentinnel28a who slammed me pretty good and I lost track of the thread, but then found it and responded. You can see his thread in quotes, all broken up, inside my post. Hello everyone, especially badray and his buddy whose freeper name I forget. By the way, I am plain "stratego" on strategypage.com, but that was taken here so I added the "fr", free republic.
Here's the thread:
Glad I found this thread. Been meaning to reply to it but did not want to recently as I was in a "low energy" state due to work stress.
First, I want to thank you Sent and Bob, for taking the time to respond to my comment, while many would not bother due to the apparent "flakiness" of my stance.
"Conspiracy theory. While I wouldn't put it past Putin to "arrange" Beslan, I think it is more probable that the Chechens did this themselves."
This sounds hopeful to me. You seem to be saying there is a possibility that Putin set it up. Let me ask you specifically. Do the circumstances arouse supsicion in your mind. How could terrorists have broken through the cordon? Are the Spetnaz that incompetent? The only similar story I recall is Saudi Arabia (and we know how conflicted they are about terrorism.)
Remember, there was widespread suspicion in Russia that Putin set up previous Chechyen incidents. You caught those references in the press, didn't you? the only reason nothing like that dribbles out now may be Putin's tighter grip on the press.
"What terrorist group targets children? All of them. Hamas has seen no problem with targeting pizzerias, there were certainly children killed on the airliners on 9/11, and even Timothy McVeigh parked his rent-a-bomb next to the nursery in the Murrah building. By seizing children, the Chechens expected to get concessions--but to a fanatic, a Russian child is just going to grow up to become a Russian soldier. The Germans used the same excuse to execute partisans or those suspected of being such, children included."
Here, I confess limited knowlege. Bob's point on Palestinian's pointing rifles at infants and firing counts here along with yours. I still feel that so far, my point may hold. I'd be happy to get more details on the "pizzerias", in terms of their clientell. But even so, I feel that it was probably less a clera cut symbolic attack on "children" than a scool attack. And McVeigh seems to be a nearly lone actor, so he may be somewhat exceptional.
Of course, I realize that terrororists like to kill children and kill a lot of them and certainly never try to avoid it. That is not my point. My point is that the deliberate targeting of children is nonetheless a new level of sickening-ness, and it adds to my supsicions here.
"I think this is just plain fearmongering, and maybe even an unconscious desire to want to believe some world-spanning conspiracy is behind 9/11. No one wants to admit that some "ignorant camel-jockeys" like Osama pulled off the most successfully gruesome attack on American soil in our history. It has to be someone else more sophisticated, more like our traditional enemies--for some people, the Russians; for others, like Michael Moore, George W. Bush."
I can see why you might think those are my motives, but it comes from a different direction. An overview of my reasoning goes like this.
1) the Soviets created 20th century terrorism, for the most part, at least post-Algeria. I don't know if you agree with this or not. If you agree, this means that up to 1990-1, they held the reins. I figure, why let them go, if you are gues like Putin and his former KGB colleagues and you run the Russian gov't. What do you think Putin & friends spend all day doing, economic policy? I figure they work the stuff they were trained for and spend their working lives on.
2) For example, people assumed that Russian spying would tail off after the Cold War was over. But separate reports from Britain and the US indicate Russian spying now equals or exceeds Cold War levels. The spying is feeding their for-profit arms sales. In my opinion, it is also helping terrorists (you must admit, such information would be useful to terrorists in many cases.)
3) Arms sales are very important to Russia's economy.(Iran's Nuclear Option, AJ Venter, Casemate, 2005, p. 304) "In other words, Russia has become the largest exporter of convenional arms since 2001 (responsible for 36 percent of all global arms transfers in 2002.)" If asked, I can give you the footnote on this one.
Terrorism "stirs the pot" and improves the overall market for Russian arms sales.
4) Look at Russia's relationship to Iran. p. 207, same source. "There are those who believe that the Shabab-3---the same missle that was fired more than a thousand miles in early 2004---to be no more than aninterim measureand that teheran's focus will now be concentrated on the Shabab-4 with its longer range and larger payload capacity. Unlike its predecessor, the Shabab-4 is a product of exclusively Russian ballistic missle technology and, by all accounts, it's development is expected to be completed within two to three years."
I need not go into the details of Russian involvement with nuclear technology, as this tends to be well known right now. Venter develops the thesis that Russia's involvement with Iran is motivated by a desire for cash, and the money is big. But I think in this case, even the Russians must be considering the geopolitical side. One aspect of which is that they are providing the greatest overt supporters of terrorism on earth with the means to place nukes in the hands of terrorists. They are also providing the means for Iran to possibly deter a conventional US attack (via the combination of nukes and ICBMs, not too far off.) This doesn't prove Russian involvement with terrorism, but it disproves the idea that they "oppose" it.
"Finally, since AQ seems to be having its ass handed to them since October 2001, it doesn't say much for the FSS' competence."
You might mean the FSB here. If I am in error, please explain my mistake to me. I'm not saying Putin is going to worry about what happens to al Queda, nor do I believe he micromanages it. Even I will admit that would be overly dangerous for him. If he is exerting control, it is via occassional information exchanges, done by such methods as arresting the Egyptian terrorist who used to be oriented toward Egyptian targets but, since his release by the Russians, has become a top al Queda operative. (sorry, I can't remember the name.) If al Queda is not controlled by the Russians, why tolerate this guy who seems to be a Russian mole? I think he's acted as a messenger boy. Sure, its elaborate, but its SOP for spies when dealing in delicate situations.
And no argument, Putin is doing that. But he's KGB, man. He lives for this kind of stuff.
Putin is no friend of the US, but even he wouldn't go so far as sponsoring AQ or a 9/11 like attack. The stakes are too high, and include his own hide.
Final word to Bob. Cheer up. Goss, in charge of the CIA now, is supposed to be the best man for the job, accoding to a guy I met in DC over the weekend who knows numerous CIA people. (It was at CPAC, a public-accessible event. I am not a person with any "access.) Condi is kicking butt at state and will soon turn the direction of State around. And if George can just set it up so the Iraqi army can take over completely inside Iraq (except for the border) by 9/2008, Hillary will lose and we will have another Republican President. George Allen for president.
18552 44589 11158 11447 95895 45689
The blue one time pad book
"The Farce is weak in this one..."
That is a polite way to put it.
Actually I think this is turning out to be a very fun thread.
The pics are great.
heh heh heh
Ok, this is the best pancake picture yet. Well done!
Let me know when to get the steam roller out.
when "Zot!" appears in the title, by the grace of Mod
I love when I am in before the zot!
Hey nice pic CG!
RC
That's a great one! Plutonians, hopefully, are not offended, however.
Can you think of any other category that should be added?
There is of course the troll who come in with the purpose of making people mad.
Then there is the tinfoil nut, which is what this one seems to be.
Then there is the blog pimp or even website pimp who comes here only to post link to websites.
Then there is the drunk newbie who posts incoherent and illiterate vanities and finally there is the clueless newbie who also posts vanities usually asking a dumb question.
Trolls and drunk newbies should be beaten up and Zot!ed but should the others be as well or should it be on a case by case basis?
I think the problem is linked to the inability of current technology to transport hallucinogens through cyberspace. If you had whatever this guy has been ingesting, his theory would make perfect sense.
I suppose by the time it reaches them, we'll all be dust LOL
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.