Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Two Interesting Trends

Is Mr Farah really going to believe an article in the NYTimes? Well...
OK, the Times has a definite bias and will only print things that make people unhappy, but they still hire a few journalists who want to find the Truth. I think.

The gist of this article is that the US is handily winning against the terrorists, but the new government in Pakistan is supporting the terrorists and the US is still calling them an ally. Can't we just do a raid and steal all their nukes? We can keep them safe until the Islamic threat has died down. Died? heh!

Go read the rest of this. It is very well thought out and reasoned.



Douglas Farah: Two Interesting Trends: "There are two stories today that point to ongoing problems and the future contours of the conflicts in which we will be emerged in coming years.

The first is the extensive New York Times piece on who lack of resources, bureaucratic infighting and lack of unified vision (coupled with a high tolerance for Pakistan’s game-playing) has helped allow al Qaeda to regroup in the tribal regions.

Perhaps the most disturbing item in the piece, which chronicles numerous disturbing elements that show how much the inter-agency process is returning to its pre-9/11 mindset the further the memories recede, is the following:

Just as it had on the day before 9/11, Al Qaeda now has a band of terrorist camps from which to plan and train for attacks against Western targets, including the United States. Officials say the new camps are smaller than the ones the group used prior to 2001. However, despite dozens of American missile strikes in Pakistan since 2002, one retired C.I.A. officer estimated that the makeshift training compounds now have as many as 2,000 local and foreign militants, up from several hundred three years ago.

Radical Islamist groups (as well as most radicalized groups) desperately need areas where they can gather to mutually reinforce their beliefs, weed out unbelievers and build a joint narrative that allows them to tell"

No comments:

Google Search

Google