Go to Naut's View
- Add a comment
- Go to Is al Qaeda attempting to influence the US elections?
Wiley
It's the true Muslim believers I am worried about...
posted by
Nautikos
on August 20, 2007 at 7:38 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
My own thoughts are that this motley band of terrorists Taliban types will disappear at the moment some true Muslim believers, take it upon themselves to strap some bombs in a vehicle of their own and drive it into the heart of a Taliban training ground and publicize that to the world to give us all hope that not all of Islam is evil..............
As far as the U.S. elections are concerned I agree with Talion's comment and if Hillary and Obama get in, look out Taliban.
posted by
WileyJohn
on August 20, 2007 at 7:06 PM
| link to this | reply
Dosto
Thanks! We'll try...
posted by
Nautikos
on August 18, 2007 at 6:01 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Thank you, Nautikos, for the insight and clarity your comment provides
RaeS,
I shall disregard your attempt at sarcasm and respond to what is a slightly confusing as well as confused pair of comments on your part.
My post addresses a very specific issue, namely the interest al Qaeda has or might have in influencing the US elections. Speculatively adopting the position of an al Qaeda strategist, I suggest what for them might be the best course of action.
I am fully aware of the fact that this theme could be developed considerably, and analyzed more fully, but then this is a short post in a blog that generally does not generate much analytic response.
Even though your first comment introduces things that may be interesting but are not pertinent to my current topic, such as the Cold War and who won it etc., I answered because of your, shall we say, idiosyncratic position. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with idiosyncrasies, but they carry an added burden of proof, and that’s where yours fails.
As far as your second comment is concerned, again it completely fails to address my original topic, but I shall humor you and speak to yours. First, to simply describe the extremely complex relationship between the West and Saudi Arabia, which exists mainly because of Saudi oil, as “chained to Saudi Arabia” is not very enlightening, neither is the notion that terrorism is ‘emanating from the highest quarters’, when in fact most (though possibly not all) of the Saudi “high quarters” are trying to keep a lid on what appears to be a widening influence of Islamo-fascism among the ‘low quarters.’ In fact, the Saudis find themselves in a position similar to that of Musharraf in Pakistan, an issue I brought up even before the uprisings at the ‘Red Mosque’. That can be found here: http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/Nautikos/462978
Lastly, to address the issue of China (again, not my topic, but yours), that the current ‘authoritarian political system’ was ‘founded in Marxism’ doesn’t say much.
The fact is that China is rapidly losing the few attributes that, in the past, would have made it possible to speak of an attempt to create a ‘communist’ state. Indeed, that China is becoming a threat, militarily to its neighbours, especially to Taiwan, and economically to everyone, especially Europe and the US, is the result of its rather dramatic change of course after the demise of Mao, and that it has divested itself of the economic principles of communism.
The Chinese Communist Party is no longer a party interested in achieving communism. It is simply a party that sails under the old flag, and intends to stay in power. And yes, it will engage in human right abuses as long as that helps the party to remain in power.
That China has become a threat over the last twenty years or so has nothing to do with the Cold War and its outcome. That China has become ‘corporate America’s darling’ is yet another issue, but I think there’s enough in this pot…
posted by
Nautikos
on August 18, 2007 at 2:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Good post, my friend! Keep up the good work and people like ourselves, will hopefully eventually change the Mediascape. Danny boy.
posted by
Dostoyevskynumber2
on August 17, 2007 at 2:09 PM
| link to this | reply
TAPS
Thanks!
posted by
Nautikos
on August 16, 2007 at 11:48 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
I already read this when you wrote it, but here are the
's for the second click.
posted by
TAPS.
on August 15, 2007 at 9:01 PM
| link to this | reply
Thank you, Nautikos, for the insight and clarity your comment provides
Quite motivating to expand upon. Thanks again!
posted by
Katray2
on August 15, 2007 at 10:20 AM
| link to this | reply
Chained to Saudi Arabia, never mind the support/practice of extremism and
terrorism emanating from the highest quarters; chained because they have been allowed to invest hugely and outrageously in our financial markets and because of oil company contracts and business dealings.
Founded in Marxism, now an authoritarian political system or dictatorship, calls itself the Chinese Communist Party, is the largest political party in the world, practices serious human rights abuses, threatens the sovereignty of Taiwan, is building up it's military capabilities at an alarming rate - hmm, changing, eh? And yes, I consider this a huge loss of the cold war. And yet, China is corporate America's darling...
Telling realities about both countries, no matter how creative the attempts to spin..
posted by
Katray2
on August 8, 2007 at 3:49 PM
| link to this | reply
OTA
I wish more people would understand that, as you do, especially your politicians...
posted by
Nautikos
on August 8, 2007 at 2:26 PM
| link to this | reply
of course they areattempting to influence the US elections.. al Qaeda is at war with us..they will do whatever it takes to attempt to destroy us... anyone who might think otherwise might also think
we are not at war
with them. This denial is known as the head in the sand routine..
~Peace, OTA
posted by
Blue_feathers
on August 7, 2007 at 1:50 PM
| link to this | reply
Oh, and I forgot...
We are
not 'coddling' Saudi Arabia - we do business with them! And we have no choice - if we won't, others will...
posted by
Nautikos
on August 7, 2007 at 1:40 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: I think fear emanating from various quarters is/will be a strong influence
RaeS, thanks for your comment! It does puzzle me a bit, though! Together with most historians, I was under the impression that we actually won the (cold) war against Communism. Although, strictly speaking, it was actually a war against various forms of Socialism, but we can't get into those details here.
China? China is not a Communist country! It is at most a Socialist but increasingly capitalistic country led by a Communist Party, which itself is in a process of tranformation...
And if all that sounds a bit confusing, sorry, I can't help it...
posted by
Nautikos
on August 7, 2007 at 11:35 AM
| link to this | reply
I think fear emanating from various quarters is/will be a strong influence
History provides telling examples of winning/losing battles against those that threaten democracy and human life...who do you credit with losing the War on Communism? Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan? They took aggressive stances, involved us in bloody battles, expanded those battles, nearly brought the world to the brink of nuclear holocaust and to what end? A corporate-bustling, wealthy-in-the-highest echelons and Communist brutal China, whose government is raking in billions upon billions from us to build their weapon systems and military to superior advantage.
In short, I wonder - to what end the fear mongers..Hand over money, support, legislation desired and weaponry with one hand to the true evildoers whilst cracking a whip hard and relentless upon the civilians caught in the crossfire of for profit fear and war.
And oh yes, why do we continue to coddle Saudi Arabia?...money trails aren't as hidden as some would like to believe they are.
posted by
Katray2
on August 6, 2007 at 6:46 PM
| link to this | reply
Naut - I hadn't heard that about, Madrid. Thank you. Okay about the
view this entry, I'll try that next time. Thanks.
posted by
FoliageGold
on August 6, 2007 at 6:20 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Naut - This is very serious writing here. I remember hearing that about
Mary, there's little doubt about the Madrid situation. And to get the margin right, just click on 'view only this entry'...
posted by
Nautikos
on August 6, 2007 at 6:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Naut - This is very serious writing here. I remember hearing that about
Madrid and the election and I remember wondering if it were true or not. I mean, how can you possibly tell? I think AQ grabs at a lot of things to make people uneasy, and it works a lot of the time. Good post.
P.S. Did you know your right margin is off the wall? Makes it a little hard to read.
posted by
FoliageGold
on August 6, 2007 at 6:08 PM
| link to this | reply
Corbin
a bit of pinch hitting is always welcome...
posted by
Nautikos
on August 6, 2007 at 4:11 PM
| link to this | reply
lindo
Thanks for your comment. Corbin has already expressed in principle what I would have said. I could add other examples from history that appeasement rarely works, but there's no need. And you yourself have answered your last question just the way I would have...
posted by
Nautikos
on August 6, 2007 at 4:10 PM
| link to this | reply
TAPS
Thanks for the endorsement!
posted by
Nautikos
on August 6, 2007 at 4:04 PM
| link to this | reply
Talion
it ain't necessarily always the case that the left is 'weak', but that it is often ideologically misguided, more so than the right. Now, when it comes to to Clinton and Obama, as a Canadian I don't really want to get involved, but I think Obama is a lightweight, and I probably shouldn't say anything about Hillary, because I find her just utterly, viscerally grating...The truth is, if I were American, I wouldn't dream of considering either of the two.
But if I were an al Qaeda strategist, I would prefer either one to any of the Republican candidates...
posted by
Nautikos
on August 6, 2007 at 4:02 PM
| link to this | reply
Offy hon
no offence, but I have little faith in the attention span of the average American voter, or Canadian, for that matter...
posted by
Nautikos
on August 6, 2007 at 3:50 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Hi Naut
Yes.....that's why Gorbachev was so successful against Reagan.....
Islamic fanatics (I noticed you left that part out) are emboldened, thus benefit, from the soft stances of the left because they know they are going to achieve their goals more easily. They're going to make the very same claims anyway because they know the world will drink it up, and in a drunken celebration of Anti-Americanism, enable their dreams of destruction and conquest.......
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on August 6, 2007 at 5:59 AM
| link to this | reply
Hi Naut
I know i don't fit into the general readrship of this particular blog, but here is my theory anway: fanatics benefit from right wing hawkish policies more than they do from left wing "soft" stances becuase that way they can protray the USA as the enemy, the agressor, the devil etc... and claim that their attacks are in retaliation for Anti-Islam policies and attacks. To me it looks like a catch-22 situation where violence is an excuse for more violence. IS it possible to break this vicious circle? i don't know and to be honest I don't think that it is likely.
posted by
lindo
on August 6, 2007 at 2:00 AM
| link to this | reply
I think you could very well be right, Naut.....Man, it is scarey shit !
posted by
hazel_st_cricket
on August 5, 2007 at 6:35 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
I think your suggestion is pretty much right-on.
posted by
TAPS.
on August 5, 2007 at 5:43 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
I, for one, don't underestimate those extremist factions. Regardless of whatever negative connotations we can place on them, we have to realize they are also smart and shrewd. That makes them even more dangerous. However, they could be too smart for their own good. If Democrats take the White House, it will be Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton (no matter which one wins the nomination, he/she will most likely pick the other as the running mate). The whole "left is weak" philosophy that has come to light in recent years is debatable, but if we take a close look at these particular candidates, I can safely say that label doesn't apply. Say what you want about Clinton and Obama, neither strikes me as particularly limp-wristed. Al Qaeda may think America is suddenly soft and easy with either of them in the Oval Office, but that would be a mistake.
posted by
Talion
on August 5, 2007 at 9:54 AM
| link to this | reply
Naut
Never thought of it that way but anything is possible. I doubt the fact that they don't bomb anything before the election will remove their threat from the American consciousness though. Heck our own media will have a greater influence because they are soooooo liberal and tend to shun anything remotely intelligent which does not fit their pathetic molds...
posted by
Offy
on August 5, 2007 at 8:11 AM
| link to this | reply