Leave It To The Media To Make Beating Al Qaeda Sound Like A Bad Thing

Sheesh (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052203014.html?referrer=emailarticle):
The analysts discussed several of the “nightmares” that might arise in this world where Muslim rage continued but without the discipline of a controlling central organization.
“My doomsday scenario, aside from weapons of mass destruction, is personalized jihad,” explained one analyst. “Everyone gets to do it on their own. Anyone can take a knife and stab someone in the back.”
A related concern is the devolution of targeting. With al-Qaeda, targets were selected to meet certain criteria of economic and symbolic importance. But as U.S. counterterrorism operations disrupt al-Qaeda, one analyst noted, “that pushes targeting down in the ranks.”
The analysts recall the anxiety produced by the Washington area sniper attacks in October 2002, in which random shootings by John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo created a fear that nearly paralyzed the region. That illustrates the damage that personalized jihad could do.
I’ll admit that, upon the successful disruption and frustration of organized international terrorist networks, the resulting havoc that could potentially spring from lone-acting personnel from said networks is a serious point to consider.
But there’s a larger point to take from this: We are so close to having successful disrupted and frustrated al Qaeda that questions like the one above are now pertinent ones to be asking. That in and of itself is happy news, and terribly inconvenient for liberals (especially those in the media) who are incapable of admitting to any level of success in the war on terror.

LF. I would be interested in knowing were and how AQ has been frustrated and disrupted.

LF. I would be interested in knowing were and how AQ has been frustrated and disrupted.
Ask the "the analysts".
"The analysts discussed several of the “nightmares” that might arise in this world where Muslim rage continued but without the discipline of a controlling central organization."

Leave It To The Media To Make Beating Al Qaeda Sound Like A Bad Thing

Sheesh:

The analysts discussed several of the “nightmares” that might arise in this world where Muslim rage continued but without the discipline of a controlling central organization.

It seems to me that 'the media' --(well, this one outlet anyway) is suggesting that *bad things* may happen to some people in the United States as a result of the elimination of a controlling organization such as al Qeada.

Which happens to be absolutely correct.

I guess that's what bothers you so much about it.

Most of the sheep (and it appears that on this particular issue you could be included in that group) prefer to be fed comforting bullshit, instead of being told the harsh truth.

LF. I would be interested in knowing were and how AQ has been frustrated and disrupted.
Afghanistan.-they don't have free reign of the country now :D

Most of the sheep (and it appears that on this particular issue you could be included in that group) prefer to be fed comforting bullshit, instead of being told the harsh truth.

Well,i guess it is always nicer to hear positive news rather than negative news. if that puts me in the 'sheep' category,then i agree.

the point i found funny in that article was that,rather than report a small amount of progress,they would rather point out 'nightmare' scenarios as a result of that same progress.

I mean there is such a thing as reporting the grim side of stories,it is important and it is necessary. But there is also such a thing as making it a point to only point out the negative.

If the news today is considered "good news"... then we live in one F'd up world.

There IS no "good news"... things that go right aren't newsworthy.

the point i found funny in that article was that,rather than report a small amount of progress,they would rather point out 'nightmare' scenarios as a result of that same progress.

??

I do not see why it is disturbing to you that a media outlet somewhere would surmise possible eventual harm being caused to American citizens at the hands of terrorists acting as lone agents, if that scenario is indeed the case.

Are you saying that you do not want to hear things on the "news" that might be disturbing to you??

??

I do not see why it is disturbing to you that a media outlet somewhere would surmise possible eventual harm being caused to American citizens at the hands of terrorists acting as lone agents, if that scenario is indeed the case.
they already are (http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/PersonalIslamicJihad).

??Are you saying that you do not want to hear things on the "news" that might be disturbing to you??

Ofcourse not. there is a difference to me between 'negative' news and 'disturbing' news.

it just seems to be when it comes to certain subjects,some media will go out of thier way to report the negative aspect of things even if they have to fish deep waters to get such a report

Ask the "the analysts".
"The analysts discussed several of the “nightmares” that might arise in this world where Muslim rage continued but without the discipline of a controlling central organization."
The analysts, whoever they are, work to a certin agenda, its in their interests to keep things focused on militarism.

Which 'central controlling organisation' are you talking about here ?

I have no problem combatting radical Islam, but occupying nations to achieve this is the wrong way of doing it.

Afghanistan.-they don't have free reign of the country now :D

Thats right. They have free reign next door in Pakistan, roaming in and out of Afghanistan at will.

That said, AQ simply moved on, Afghanistan is all about the Taliban now.

Thats right. They have free reign next door in Pakistan, roaming in and out of Afghanistan at will.

That said, AQ simply moved on, Afghanistan is all about the Taliban now.
hardly-they can't show their faces without wondering who might turn them in for the bounty on their head. it might not happen today or tomorrow, but someday, someone is going to get sick of herding goats.

hardly-they can't show their faces without wondering who might turn them in for the bounty on their head. it might not happen today or tomorrow, but someday, someone is going to get sick of herding goats.
That's exactly right, Mike.

"Analysts" = paid pentagon propagandists.

"Analysts" = paid pentagon propagandists.
I guess it all depends on what they say, right?

boy, they sure are bad at their jobs. Propaganda is supposed to be PRO-government.

hardly-they can't show their faces without wondering who might turn them in for the bounty on their head. it might not happen today or tomorrow, but someday, someone is going to get sick of herding goats.
Hardly what. AQ simply move on to the next nation on their list, or next region on their list.
Remember, AQ are not out to claim territory, their out to create armed insurrection against regimes, then move on, while leaving the US chasing shadows and local natives to slog it out.

it might not happen today or tomorrow, but someday, someone is going to get sick of herding goats.

It might not happen today or tomorrow, but someday, someone in some foreign nation is going to get sick of the world's leading terrorist nation (this one) killing every human being on the planet who happens to stand in the way of continued profits for U.S. corporations operating overseas.

And on that day, America will suffer a loss more horrific than it has ever felt before.

And in the days immediately following that, America will self destruct.

And all of us will -unfortunately- be made to feel the pain.

It might not happen today or tomorrow, but someday, someone in some foreign nation is going to get sick of the world's leading terrorist nation (this one) killing every human being on the planet who happens to stand in the way of continued profits for U.S. corporations operating overseas.


Many of them are no longer even U.S. corporations. Many are now multi-national corporations with no vested interest in the welfare of the United States whatsoever.

Many of them are no longer even U.S. corporations. Many are now multi-national corporations with no vested interest in the welfare of the United States whatsoever.

100% correct.

Not only that, but they never HAD the slightest interest in the welfare of the U.S. when they were based here, nor do they now that they've become multi-national. They care about one thing; profits.

Caring about profits is fine. But the problem is in what they are doing to realize those profits. They do not care -in the slightest--how many people around the globe they have to poison, or make wage slaves of, or victimize, or abuse, or murder in order to attain those profits.

100% correct.

Not only that, but they never HAD the slightest interest in the welfare of the U.S. when they were based here, nor do they now that they've become multi-national. They care about one thing; profits.

Caring about profits is fine. But the problem is in what they are doing to realize those profits. They do not care -in the slightest--how many people around the globe they have to poison, or make wage slaves of, or victimize, or abuse, or murder in order to attain those profits.

The standard of living around the world has been steadily rising on the backs of these souless corporations for nigh on 70 years. More rapidly in the last 30 years. Clearly these multi-nationals must be doing something wrong. It should be going the other way shouldn't it?

Worse still nations are competing for them to come to their countries to set up or create new operations. It's completely inexplicable how these countries invite these multi-nationals in and then their standard of living rises. It makes no sense.

The standard of living around the world has been steadily rising on the backs of these souless corporations for nigh on 70 years.
Can you cite a source for that claim? The standard of living for whom exactly? There are more than twice as many people on the planet as there was 70 years ago and half the population of the world today lives on less than $2 a day (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp).

The poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income.

Worse still nations are competing for them to come to their countries to set up or create new operations. It's completely inexplicable how these countries invite these multi-nationals in and then their standard of living rises. It makes no sense.
If Bill Gates walks into a bar, the average income in that bar becomes millions of dollars a year.

That is the kind of statistic you are spewing here.


.

Whats the name of that well known Dubai company, oh yeah, Haliburton.

Their corporate headquarters is in Huston, Tx, Paul. They're an American firm. That said, they do have locations in 70 different countries, which doesn't surprise me seeing as to how we're talking about a company that does 20 + billion in sales every year.

Their corporate headquarters is in Huston, Tx, Paul. They're an American firm. That said, they do have locations in 70 different countries, which doesn't surprise me seeing as to how we're talking about a company that does 20 + billion in sales every year.
Yes it is in Houston, on Clinton Drive I believe.
They were talking about relocating to Dubai.

They are moving corporate headquarters to Dubai... Seems to me that news came out quite a while ago, so maybe they already have.

They are moving corporate headquarters to Dubai... Seems to me that news came out quite a while ago, so maybe they already have.

Yeah but Im not supposed to know that.

They are moving corporate headquarters to Dubai... Seems to me that news came out quite a while ago, so maybe they already have.
Not according to their website, they haven't.

They're packing.
'Thanks uncle Sam ya sucka, see ya in da next war'.

Hmm I looked this up and it's surprisingly hard to find information about it.... A few places mention a headquarters move to Dubai last year, while a few say that Halliburton now has TWO corporate headquarters. One article says they will remain a U.S. company "for tax purposes". (Odd, considering that I thought all our outsourcing problems could be solved by lifting the "prohibitive" corporate taxes we supposedly have.... Aren't companies trying to get out of the U.S. for tax reasons?)

Considering that Dubai has some of the lowest tax rates in the galaxy, it seems a good reason.

It would make sense to keep a fone operator at a desk in Texas, to appear like an American Company tho, easier to get into the Pentagon that way.

Considering that Dubai has some of the lowest tax rates in the galaxy, it seems a good reason.
That's exactly why it doesn't make sense. If it was a tax issue, then why not move their operations entirely to Dubai? They are apparently keeping their Texas headquarters and adding another, not replacing it. They are still officially a U.S.-based company.

That's exactly why it doesn't make sense. If it was a tax issue, then why not move their operations entirely to Dubai? They are apparently keeping their Texas headquarters and adding another, not replacing it. They are still officially a U.S.-based company.

This is what Im saying. At the time it broke that they were packing up, it was very unpopular, even among the war mongering right, who seen a company that cleaned up over Iraq contracts simply walk with all the bucks.
Solution, keep a US headquarters, but move the bulk of operations to Dubai, at least until the heat stops.

This is what Im saying. At the time it broke that they were packing up, it was very unpopular, even among the war mongering right, who seen a company that cleaned up over Iraq contracts simply walk with all the bucks.
Solution, keep a US headquarters, but move the bulk of operations to Dubai, at least until the heat stops.
There is no evidence whatsoever that they are moving "the bulk of operations". They are not shrinking the U.S. headquarters at all - in fact they are apparently expanding U.S. operations and hiring more people here in the U.S.

You're right that they are not moving to Dubai because it would be insanely unpopular.

There is no evidence whatsoever that they are moving "the bulk of operations". They are not shrinking the U.S. headquarters at all - in fact they are apparently expanding U.S. operations and hiring more people here in the U.S.

You're right that they are not moving to Dubai because it would be insanely unpopular.
it would also be insanely expensive. supporting employees overseas is a nightmare.

it would also be insanely expensive. supporting employees overseas is a nightmare.
This is true, although I assume they could find local employees to fill quite a few of the posts. And they'd be saving money on taxes anyways.

They wouldn't really have their headquarters there. Most of the really big companies in the U.S. are officially registered in Delaware because Delaware has some really advantageous corporate laws, but their presence there is basically someone to accept service of process for lawsuits and that's about it. I imagine moving your company to Dubai would be pretty much the same thing.

They wouldn't really have their headquarters there. Most of the really big companies in the U.S. are officially registered in Delaware because Delaware has some really advantageous corporate laws, but their presence there is basically someone to accept service of process for lawsuits and that's about it. I imagine moving your company to Dubai would be pretty much the same thing.
Precisely. I've wanted to incorporate our business there for years; Illinois is the LEAST business-friendly state I can think of (especially for manufacturers), but hey - who am I kidding....I'm pretty sure they're running par for the course in blue territory.

Whats the name of this family business-IKEA.

God, I wish!!!

God, I wish!!!

I suspect IKEA would have a different "feel" to it if you ran it. :) And liberals would remove it from their list of "acceptable" big box stores (the other being Target).

I suspect IKEA would have a different "feel" to it if you ran it. :) And liberals would remove it from their list of "acceptable" big box stores (the other being Target).
LOL - yeah, probably...

IKEA is overpriced and most of their furniture is actually kinda ugly. I like Target though - got a couple of cute bikinis there last summer.

IKEA is overpriced and most of their furniture is actually kinda ugly.
The industrial design (packaging) of their products is utterly brilliant. And I love the aesthetics. Most pieces are comprised of clean, modern lines that work fairly well in my home. Oh, and their shit is cheap, DF! Have you ever been to a retail furniture store? If not, then prepare to be sticker shocked.
I like Target though - got a couple of cute bikinis there last summer.
I like Target, too. It's much nicer than Wal-Mart, IMHO. And their house brand (Archer Farms) strikes me as being of fairly high quality.

The industrial design (packaging) of their products is utterly brilliant. And I love the aesthetics. Most pieces are comprised of clean, modern lines that work fairly well in my home. Oh, and their shit is cheap, DF! Have you ever been to a retail furniture store? If not, then prepare to be sticker shocked.
Yeah I know... Furniture is all overpriced. You gotta really hunt for the good deals. That or just inherit all your furniture from relatives or buy it used. :D

Can you cite a source for that claim? The standard of living for whom exactly? There are more than twice as many people on the planet as there was 70 years ago and half the population of the world today lives on less than $2 a day (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp).



If Bill Gates walks into a bar, the average income in that bar becomes millions of dollars a year.

That is the kind of statistic you are spewing here.


.


All you have to do is look at any countries GDP per capita now vs then. Look at China or India or the SE Asian Tigers now v then. Even South America is steaming ahead.