A story from WW2; bin Laden motive that Bush doesn't see

Sava · February 20, 2003, 09:10

My grandfather recently shared his experience at his hometown of Kragujevic. He was one of 5 survivors of a massacre of 5,000 men and boys who were killed by the Nazis after being forced to dig their own graves. My grandfather told me how the whole situation came about. Serbian partisans ambushed a Nazi patrol. They cut the Nazis' heads and genitals off, and stuffed the genitals in the mouths of the heads, took pictures of it, and sent it to Hitler. Hitler, so angry, sent the Nazis to Kragujevic to kill the civilians in retribution. They shot every male between 12 and 70. My grandfather survived by hiding under dead bodies and playing dead. Nice huh?

The partisans did what they did because they wanted the Nazis to do something so horrible, it would encourage the native population to fight the Nazis. They knew what Hitler would do in response and they got what they wanted.

Anyways, the point is that this parallels OBL's motives. OBL wants the US to attack Iraq. He commits terror acts in order to enrage America so that it takes military action in that region. Even though OBL is motivated by the US's presence and ultimately wants the US gone; he's smart enough to realize that America won't run away in the face of terrorism. So he wants America to increase it's military presence. It gives him more targets that are easily accessable, as well as serves as a recruiting tool for more terrorists. He wants to enrage Muslims to encourage them to fight America.

Bush is playing right into OBL's hands in his vendetta against Saddam.

But I'm not surprised that war supporters can't connect the dots. They rarely do.

Pekka · February 20, 2003, 09:20

I think this has been obvious for a long time when it comes to OBL. Of course he wants to get more tension with americans. That's what terrorists do.
Does this mean he should be left alone? Of course not.
OBL wants to destroy the US, he can't do that with few attacks. He needs full scale war and never ending anger and hatred in his fellow countries.

Countries have been given a chance to get rid off terrorists and fight it with our help. If they fail to do that, and even more if they are not intersted in helping, they get punished. Fair deal.

Pekka · February 20, 2003, 09:22

And personally I don't think Iraq has not so much to do with terrorism. This is just a snack before moving on to demolishing terrorism and their harbors. Iraq just has dictator that needs to be toppled, because he is ticking time bomb.

Kropotkin · February 20, 2003, 09:51

Well, it doesn't seem like a wild guess that an attack on Iraq might lead to at least a short time popularity boost for Osama. Particulary so if the attack becomes bloody for the iraqi side.

That's one of the lessons from history that the 'appeasement'-ranters haven't thought about. I started a thread about such thing but it faded away in the usual gibberish.

Ecthy · February 20, 2003, 10:02

Have you just been comparing Bush to Hitler?

Az · February 20, 2003, 10:10

"never to return" my ass.

Ming · February 20, 2003, 10:30

Well Sava... you seem to be the one that can't connect the dots. Yeah... Bush doesn't realize that going to war in Iraq might piss off the Arab world...

Yeah right...

It is just their opinion that the pluses out weigh the minues. Your opinion is just different than theirs...

So yes, they can connect the dots, you just can't

Kropotkin · February 20, 2003, 11:07

Both are connecting dots, it's just that Sava finds the lines to show a picture of a bunny and Bush a dragon.

Urban Ranger · February 20, 2003, 11:28

W. completely underestimated the global resistance against his war plan.

It would have helped if he had worked the diplomatic circuits to see what various countries feel about the whole thing. A lack of experience in international relations indeed.

Zylka · February 20, 2003, 11:40

Edited by Ming...

One more post like that Zylka, and you are toast again.

Zylka · February 20, 2003, 11:43

...but not to be so cold, I exclude your grandfather from that generalization and am glad that he was able to escape such a horrific and brutal war crime. No one deserves to have to go through that to survive, let alone be systematically executed and thrown in a ditch. Idiocy

Sava · February 20, 2003, 13:41

Ming, instead of missing my point and belittling me, perhaps you should read a little more into what I'm saying. I know Bush realizes that Iraq action will piss Iraq off. I don't think that he realizes that OBL wants him to attack Iraq. And if he does, I think he's overestimating how effective US military action in Iraq will be.

Sure, when Saddam has all his tanks in the desert out in the open, it's easy to blow them up. Going through the streets of Baghdad, house to house, is a lot harder. This war is going to be fought in the streets, not in the desert.

Saddam isn't a martyr... he doesn't want to be one. He's a narcissist who wants to live and remain in power. If the realization sets in the he's going to be removed... i.e. US troops at his door... he's going to set off any WoMD he has and try to take as many people with him as possible. Although Saddam's conventional capabilities might be far below what they were in 1991-92, I think that he's got WoMD in place for a last ditch suicide plot.

My point is not that Bush doesn't know that Iraq action will piss off the Arab world (but it's nice to know that you think I'm that dumb); my point is that Bush's advice is coming from over-confident military people and that he's not thinking about worst-case scenarios, and he's certainly not bothering to think about post-Saddam situations.

Bereta_Eder · February 20, 2003, 13:48

OBL wants the US/west to increase force against muslim countries so that people will rise up.

For that he is willing to commit attrocities to the US in order to get them to fight back which will in responce make more muslim people to fight back.

It is an old trick, which was used by many red terrorist groups in Europe too.

Bereta_Eder · February 20, 2003, 13:49

BTW Serbian partisans were tough mothers

Arrian · February 20, 2003, 13:53

He didn't miss your point Sava.

He said that your point has been taken into consideration, but didn't convince the administration not to attack Iraq.

It may be the wrong decision (attacking Iraq, that is), but the idea that Bush & Co. have simply not considered a backlash in the Arab world is silly. Of course they've thought about it. They see it in a different light than you do, though.

Events pre- and post-invading Afganistan are probably encouraging them to think that the backlash won't be that bad. There were a lot of people worried about a massive backlash in the Arab world if we attack Afganistan and took down the Taleban. Didn't happen. That's not to say that Afganistan didn't have any effect (though the people who got most worked up over it already hated our guts), just that the benifits of getting rid of the Taleban and maybe nabbing Osama (doh, didn't pull that part off) outwayed the downside.

-Arrian

Imran Siddiqui · February 20, 2003, 13:56

Quote:

I don't think that he realizes that OBL wants him to attack Iraq.

I think he does... but do we want to structure our entire foreign policy on what OBL will like and won't like?

Bereta_Eder · February 20, 2003, 13:56

No but rather in what will benefit your people instead of just the oil companies.

Pekka · February 20, 2003, 17:03

I also think Dubya realizes that OBL wants that to happen. He has advisors etc if he somehow missed it.

Ming · February 20, 2003, 17:14

Sava... I did read what you wrote... very carefully. A sad story to say the least.

But it doesn't change the fact that your assumption that Bush doesn't know the dangers is just plain wrong. The fact that you are using this argument to support your anti war view is kind of silly.

Sava · February 20, 2003, 17:27

Ming, I'm not using it to support my view at all. In fact, I don't have a concrete view at all. My opinion is not a static, peacenik view that we shouldn't go to war at all costs. I simply want the planning for such military action to be well thought out. Let's not kid ourselves, Iraq has been on the Bush agenda from the beginning, this isn't something he just thought about when 9-11 happened. He's had a clear idea of what he wants.

My point is that Bush's plan doesn't take enough consideration or place enough importance on the dangers or the costs of this war. There are certainly things that could be done to improve his plan. But his mind is so set in stone. It's easy to throw taxpayer's money around and play God with American lives. Look at Afghanistan for Pete's sake! There was no planning on what to do once the Taliban was gone. It's complete chaos there. Bush even said, "We aren't into nation building."

For any military operation in Iraq to succeed, that nation needs to be stabilized once Saddam is gone. My point isn't that Bush doesn't know the dangers... I can't even begin to count how many times I've said this. My point is that he isn't thinking enough about a post-Saddam Iraq. And that is going to have more of an affect on the risk of terrorism against the US than Saddam being in power.

Paiktis... this Iraq thing isn't totally about oil. Sure, the availability of the oil to American companies is a factor, but it's not the whole story.

Ming · February 20, 2003, 18:07

Now you are changing your tune. Your original point was ONLY that Bush wasn't considering that he was playing into OBL's hands and that he was going to piss off the Arab world. And that is just silly.

Now you are backstepping with other arguments

*granted, at least they are more valid than your original statements in your first post*

Velociryx · February 20, 2003, 18:13

Oh, enough with the "it's all about oil" drivel.

That's no more true than all the nonsense about how we don't "know" whether or not Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Both are patently false and silly statements.

If it was all about oil, we'd likely not risk armed invasion, which would risk Saddam igniting the wells, now would we? Nahhh, much easier to use our financial clout to get what contracts we want, Frenchies not withstanding (sorry guys, but our economy is 3x bigger than yours....if we want to play hardball, you will lose)--same with the EU....can't compete effectively with the welfare state you've got. That's why, even WITH the 15 new member states waiting in the wings, the EU economy will be a three-toed sloth compared to the US's....but hey, don't take my word for it....watch the performance for the next few years and see for yourself.

It's not all about oil, and it's not about american imperialism, and it's not about some bizzare conspiracy involving little green space friends, elvis, hitler, and jfk.

It's about an a$$hole who has been in the sandbox too long, and it's time for him to go.

He was OUR a$$hole (bought and paid for) for a long time. We put him there. More recently, he became France and Germany's a$$hole, and now we're going to remove him.

And I can promise you this.

They'll run out of people to fly planes into buildings, blow up cafe's filled with civilians, gas Kurds, and other wholesome activities like that a looooong time before we run out of bullets.

-=Vel=-

Jaguar · February 20, 2003, 18:35

Beautiful post, Vel.

Sava, I agree that bin Laden wants to piss us off. However, there's a difference between an attack specifically to remove the government, and an all out genocide.

Kramerman · February 20, 2003, 18:36

Yes, how dare those evil americans? This is sooo parallel to the granfather's story. I mean, slaughtering every man between the ages of 12 and 70 is completely relevant to today's situation of toppling a desptoic dictator...

The US will deserve any and all terrorist attacks they receive for doing this evil deed...

Of course i understand that OBL will contort and manipulate what happens in Iraq for propaganda, to enrage and inflame the ME, and it is obvious this is OBL's goal, to get the US to attack Iraq. But i just dont see any real parallel betwen OBL's idea and that of the Serbian partisans.

Sava · February 20, 2003, 18:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Now you are changing your tune. Your original point was ONLY that Bush wasn't considering that he was playing into OBL's hands and that he was going to piss off the Arab world. And that is just silly.

Now you are backstepping with other arguments

*granted, at least they are more valid than your original statements in your first post*

If anything, I didn't properly spell out my point in the first.

Sava · February 20, 2003, 18:38

I should point out that I'm not specifically characterizing a war with Iraq as something the Nazis would do. Overall, the idea is just, it's the method I object to.

Ming · February 20, 2003, 18:43

No kidding

SlowwHand · February 20, 2003, 18:48

What can he say ? Sava knows he's objectionable.

Sava · February 20, 2003, 19:25

REMEMBER SLOWW I"M WATCHING YOU!

OneFootInTheGrave · February 20, 2003, 19:30

Heh... when you get a nuke blown up in Chichago in 15 years, after all this has settled and this was a group of Iraqis who became fatherless in the coming war you will think WTF Arabs hate us!!!

This time you are not fighting an evil regime that its own people knew was evil, now you are fighting the people themselves (hey don't ask me how many people will die from US trying to save the Iraqis from their evil dicator that was put into place by US 30 years ago,) if we have forgotten it, the starving Iraqis surely did not. (nor do the Saudis that US helps keep their evil-dicators in place) In these days of fast intercontinental travel this can be a dangerous business. Even more than the cold-war, and the gung-ho Bush style surely doesn't help. Taking care of OBL and his network would have been a good first step, but noooo Iraq is THE threat its WOMD are a threat to you dear people in the west. WTF?!? Even bigger threat than Kim Jong with his nuclear capacity? (or Pakistan for that matter - now Pakistan the country that propped Taliban in the first place and shielded Al Quaeda is soooo resopnsible)... Are we going after tehm next? Or do they just have the dicator that his people love so we are not going to overthrow him

Or is it the fact that Saddam is an easy target (or was meant to be) to show off who is the new boss in the playground win the elections and secure some energy money???

And to all those oil bashers? Why does US get implicated everywhere in the world where there is oil? Like ME/ Venezuela ? And not in some other fancy places like Sudan/Rwanda/ or Malaysian peninsula? Why is US out of Vietnam these days... Hey they are not too US friendly if I can remember still. But noone seems to be bothered. Who is crazy to spend money on them while billions go to corrupt dictators that are willing to listen like Saudis...

How come that the Mubarak/Saudi Royal family/ king of Jordan (well he seems like a genuinley good guy from a distance) are all US puppies and need US money or army to stay there in power while non-US loving leaders are the axis of evil ---- Iran/Lybia/Syria? All in ME - what is it for the silicon in the sand of for their beautiful archeological sites?

To say it is not about oil - what is it in that desert of sand that US needs to be present there as opposed to the desert in Sudan with an evil dicator?

Anyway... to think this is the only reason - of course not - there are many reasons pro and against, however taking some of them bluntly out is just naive.

Still Sava has a valid point and I think too that OBL's idea was that, and he is succeding (If I am correct he has stated this even before 9-11, to try and unite the muslim world againt the west). His unwilling partner on the other side is G.W.Bush, well he surely thinks he is not playing on OBL cards (at leat I hope so

) but I am sure OBL couldn't have imagined better. All the US arrogance and power coming to conquer (and unite) the muslim world against the west under the lead of US. OBL wet dream or what?

It is just happening. Who is right the future (or history) will tell us.