Al Qaeda or the NeoCons?

Posted:
in AppleOutsider edited January 2014
Who's done more damage and ruined more lives?
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 57
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    I've always kind of seen them as being on the same team.
  • Reply 2 of 57
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    I've always kind of seen them as being on the same team.



    They have the same world view, so I guess they are on the same team...
  • Reply 3 of 57
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post


    They have the same world view, so I guess they are on the same team...



    I was thinking more of a measured assessment.



    It could be done in the USA only or globally, but adding up lives lost, lives ruined (crippled or damaged in other ways), monetary losses and financial damages generally and finally damage to the environment, culture and knowledge.



    The real difficulty is where do you draw the line, as Al Qaeda was a product of the NeoCons proxy war in Afghanistan in the '80s.
  • Reply 4 of 57
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gastroboy View Post


    I was thinking more of a measured assessment.



    It could be done in the USA only or globally, but adding up lives lost, lives ruined (crippled or damaged in other ways), monetary losses and financial damages generally and finally damage to the environment, culture and knowledge.



    The real difficulty is where do you draw the line, as Al Qaeda was a product of the NeoCons proxy war in Afghanistan in the '80s.



    Al Qaeda, in that respect, is born of both a broken alliance with the US, a war with the former USSR, and generalized realization that the US/USSR global influence regime was having ill-effects on far flung locals.



    But really, they are one and the same.
  • Reply 5 of 57
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Well, more civilians have died by orders given by neo-cons then al-Qaeda since the day before 9-11, so by that measure, the neo-cons "win"?
  • Reply 6 of 57
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,074member
    Saddam killed between 70 and 125 civilians each day:



    http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_d...sein42503.html



    We have only killed about 100K over 5 years, so it is quite a bit less than Saddam killed.



    http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
  • Reply 7 of 57
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    Saddam killed between 70 and 125 civilians each day:



    http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_d...sein42503.html



    We have only killed about 100K over 5 years, so it is quite a bit less than Saddam killed.



    http://www.iraqbodycount.org/



    The problem is that we simply do not know how many people have died.
  • Reply 8 of 57
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    Saddam killed between 70 and 125 civilians each day:



    http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_d...sein42503.html



    We have only killed about 100K over 5 years, so it is quite a bit less than Saddam killed.



    http://www.iraqbodycount.org/



    Roughly the same kill rate. maybe Bush needs to try harder?



    btw Does this include the Causalities in Gulf War 1?
  • Reply 9 of 57
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Al Qaeda is/was a term coined by western intelligence agencies (most especially CIA) denoting a list of Islamic radicals and warlords in Afghanistan who were supplied with $billions in cash and advanced weaponry in order to take on the occupying Soviet military during the 1980s. It literally means "The Base", and referred to the database kept by intelligence agencies, of individuals and groups who benefitted from this funneling of weapons and hard cash. Osama bin Laden was but one of these people. President Reagan famously referred to these Islamic radicals as "being the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers".. their efforts were largely responsible for the humiliating defeat suffered by the Soviet military in Afghanistan, which in turn was a factor in the eventual demise of the "Communist Bloc" a couple of years later.



    The original "Neocons", ironically, started off embracing Marxist radicalism. With the downswing of Marxism the "neocons to be",going wherever way the wind blows (as well as requiring some place to hang their hats) jumped ship, abandoned the left and infiltrated the politically fertile area of rightwing philosophy in the US. The rest, as they say, is history.



    It's also ironic that some of the very same people who covertly supported the nascent "Al Qaeda" to such a large extent in the 1980s were instrumental in writing the definitive NeoCon manifesto "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which called for all-out American domination in the Middle East, preemptive wars, a massive increase in the US military budget, the weaponization of space, the use of "biological weapons targeting specific genotypes"... a shopping list of wild, unattainable, extremist goals which could only have gotten public and official support with the aid of a "catastrophic, catalytic event" that enraged the US and world's citizenry. The Neocons got exactly what they wanted on 9/11/2001, and their agenda went into fullswing as if someone literally flicked a switch.



    Those Middle Easterners must have really wanted to have had their butts kicked, beyond their wildest nightmares!



    Re. who's ruined more lives? The NeoCons win hands down. With 10s of thousands of civilians dead in Afghanistan and up to 1.5 million dead in Iraq.... its hard to top that. How many people have "Al Qaeda" killed? That is hard to quantify, since "Al Qaeda" now has so many definitions, covering a multitude of radical or disaffected Islamic groups in the Middle East, and many other places around the globe. Virtually all casualties provably caused by such groups "affiliated to Al Qaeda" have been in Middle Eastern countries in which these groups operate. There is no proof that the 7/7 attacks in the UK, the Madrid train bombings, the Bali bombings, ad other notorious terrorist attacks were committed by "bona fide" Al Qaeda members.



    Some folks in this thread mention Saddam Hussein. Sure, he was responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, but he was no Al Qaeda member. He despised radical Islam. He likened Osama bin Laden unto a "madman", and his ego was such that any radical Islamic group that threatened Saddam's power base was targeted as an enemy. Saddam Hussein was supported by the Reagan Administration , which contained many of the current NeoCon movers and shakers, including Dick Cheney. It would be more appropriate to add Saddam's victims to those killed as a result of the NeoCon agenda.
  • Reply 10 of 57
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    You have argued for a different meaning of AQ in the past, SJ. Does "the base" no longer refer to a training ground from 1988?
  • Reply 11 of 57
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,074member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gastroboy View Post


    Roughly the same kill rate. maybe Bush needs to try harder?



    btw Does this include the Causalities in Gulf War 1?



    This includes the time period of the 2nd gulf war, but only the people killed by Saddam.



    70/day = 127K over 5 years

    125/day = 228K over 5 years



    We also killed a whole bunch via GW1 (~1million or so), and Iraqi sanctions (Clinton killed ~1.5 million). I don't think that the neo-cons are even in the top 5 of "all time greatest killers of Iraqi civilians", it may be that they saved more lives than they took.
  • Reply 12 of 57
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    This includes the time period of the 2nd gulf war, but only the people killed by Saddam.



    70/day = 127K over 5 years

    125/day = 228K over 5 years



    We also killed a whole bunch via GW1 (~1million or so), and Iraqi sanctions (Clinton killed ~1.5 million). I don't think that the neo-cons are even in the top 5 of "all time greatest killers of Iraqi civilians", it may be that they saved more lives than they took.



    How convenient for you that there is simply no way to know.
  • Reply 13 of 57
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Harald View Post


    Well, more civilians have died by orders given by neo-cons then al-Qaeda since the day before 9-11, so by that measure, the neo-cons "win"?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    Saddam killed between 70 and 125 civilians each day:



    http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_d...sein42503.html



    We have only killed about 100K over 5 years, so it is quite a bit less than Saddam killed.



    http://www.iraqbodycount.org/





    Many of the deaths in Iraq have been terrorism, which I suppose you could blame on the neocons, but I'd say the more proximal cause of those deaths is al Qaeda and other terrorist groups (e.g., shia vs. sunni killings).
  • Reply 14 of 57
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,074member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by midwinter View Post


    How convenient for you that there is simply no way to know.



    Well, that goes both ways ("the neo-cons are the biggest murderers, tru nuf!"). In the absence of good data, how can this thread even exist in a logical world? We are all just guessing, reading the tea leaves in whatever way makes us feel superior to those other folks.



    IMHO, the mistake was not the invasion of Iraq, it was the shoddy work done in planning the invasion. We would be murdering Iraqis right now even if we had not invaded in 2003.
  • Reply 15 of 57
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    This includes the time period of the 2nd gulf war, but only the people killed by Saddam.



    70/day = 127K over 5 years

    125/day = 228K over 5 years



    We also killed a whole bunch via GW1 (~1million or so), and Iraqi sanctions (Clinton killed ~1.5 million). I don't think that the neo-cons are even in the top 5 of "all time greatest killers of Iraqi civilians", it may be that they saved more lives than they took.



    The GW1 and sanctions figures sound totally ridiculous, you will need to substantiate them.



    They are more like the fatalities in the Iraq-Iran war, which you have not included into the Saddam deaths. He started that war.



    I doubt that the Neo-Cons in the light of history will be seen as having saved lives. They have run 2 wars (Afghanistan & Iraq) so incompetently that they will in the end have only added to the misery of both countries with nothing much to show for it. Ruining America in the process.



    The Taliban look to take back Afghanistan and who knows what mess Iraq will become after the USA stops bribing the insurgents to stop attacking and they'll feel free (with much more money and armaments) to take back up where they left off.
  • Reply 16 of 57
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    Well, that goes both ways ("the neo-cons are the biggest murderers, tru nuf!"). In the absence of good data, how can this thread even exist in a logical world? We are all just guessing, reading the tea leaves in whatever way makes us feel superior to those other folks.



    IMHO, the mistake was not the invasion of Iraq, it was the shoddy work done in planning the invasion. We would be murdering Iraqis right now even if we had not invaded in 2003.



    By that logic, we're murdering everyone that we're not actively saving. What Hussein did under the OFF deal was appalling, but we certainly didn't make him do it.
  • Reply 17 of 57
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,074member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by midwinter View Post


    By that logic, we're murdering everyone that we're not actively saving. What Hussein did under the OFF deal was appalling, but we certainly didn't make him do it.



    Sanctions during the 1990 killed upwards of a million children, and they would still be going on.



    http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9908/06/iraq.sanctions/
  • Reply 18 of 57
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    Sanctions during the 1990 killed upwards of a million children, and they would still be going on.





    And that's my point. The sanctions did not kill the children. What Hussein did resulted in the deaths. I say again, that by that logic, we're killing people in droves in North Korea.
  • Reply 19 of 57
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,074member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by midwinter View Post


    And that's my point. The sanctions did not kill the children. What Hussein did resulted in the deaths. I say again, that by that logic, we're killing people in droves in North Korea.



    If we could invade North Korea without risking damage to Soeul, then I think it would be the right thing to do. Just like Iraq, our invasion would cause some civilians to die, but in the end fewer people would die, because plenty are dying right now.



    But, of course, people would blame the government for the "new" deaths, while ignoring the "prevented" deaths. This is the philosophy of Batman - do no harm, even if the failure to do no harm causes greater harm. Batman could save a lot of lives if he would just kill the joker instead of returning him to the insane asylum, but he would rather have 100 people die by inaction than kill one person (I am talking about young Batman here, not the Dark Knight series batman).
  • Reply 20 of 57
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gastroboy View Post


    Who's done more damage and ruined more lives?



    Both.
Sign In or Register to comment.