Arun Gandhi: Using Religion to Justify Violence is Always Wrong

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by suchandra

The worm shows its teeth. Well that's your sentimental belief, you simply present your biased opinion. Therefore if you like it or not you have to accept that others do the same.

 

 

..............................................................

WHAT???????????????????????????????????????

 

chandu, you got a good point!

[suchandra]

 

Originally Posted by suchandra

The worm shows its teeth. Well that's your sentimental belief, you simply present your biased opinion. Therefore if you like it or not you have to accept that others do the same.

 

 

..............................................................

WHAT???????????????????????????????????????

 

chandu, you got a good point!

Your posts aren't appealing to me, are rather foul-mouthed and vulgar. I know that you aren't an idiot, please try again.

[jeffster]

Suchandra,

Chandu 69 has presented some valid evidence here, and I believe he also makes a good point that we must discern between facts, opinions and beliefs. There are any number of conspiracy theories on the web about any number of subjects, but we must sift through to the truth.

 

Chandu_69,

We are meant to become gentlemen, and that means gentle men, so there is no need for name-calling here.

 

The situation in Pakistan with the Taliban is accelerating at an incredible rate. Here is the latest, again posted from what is essential a "liberal," generally left of center publication, the Washington Post, definitely not a war-mongering paper.

 

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/19/AR2009041901731.html

 

 

Give them a valley, they immediately want the whole country. That is why terrorists should NEVER be appeased. Let's get this lesson now, before too late.

jeffster/AMd

[chandu_69]

Well, I have explained giving evidence here at this thread

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/world-review/450173-chopra-attack-prompts-tough-questions.html

 

suchandra made some funny and wild observations saying manmohan singh wants to be another bush.

That indian finacial institutions want war.

 

Little he knows India is not US and war is bad for everybody's business.There is no military industrial complex of any significance and whatever small defence suppliers that india have an unhappy prospect of payments getting delayed in the event of war.

 

Pakistani bloggers have written a zillion pages that kasab (the lone terrorist) caught in mumbai attacks is an indian.But all that stopped after nawaz sharif and sherry rehman (pakistan minister) accepted the fact of kasab being a pakisthani citizen.

 

I have explained patiently (in the thread mentioned above) the evidences gathered and i painstakingly gave information from pakistan news agencies.

 

Now, he is back with same theories.Had he discussed those evidences i would have patiently explained again without blowing the lid.

 

The problem with him is he is unable to distinguish between opinions and facts.If he keeps his fanciful theories to himself nobody should have any objection.

[suchandra]

 

 

suchandra made some funny and wild observations saying manmohan singh wants to be another bush.

That indian finacial institutions want war.

 

 

 

No, this is not what I believe, I always said that my impression is that the Indian government is a shadow cabinet, puppets on a string of some super rich global players - ok may be the same as in case of G.W. Bush.

But anyway this is politics, Canakya Pandit has advised not to trust a politician. And this is how I understand this forum, it says "World review", you present your impression. Now you come up with evidence, reference and bring forward proofs? This is not how I understand this forum. Just like is there proof what actually happened behind the scenes at 9/11? No, there isn't but still people say, I believe this and my impression is that. And not that someone comes up, oh, you believe this, funny and wild observations. If someone presents his impression in politics how he sees things this is also not final, it might change according to feedback.

Such comments are rather like ad hominem attacks, inappropriate unless your purpose is to boot out people from this place.

[chandu_69]

Suchandra, i know you have a difficulty in reading what you wrote and the response of others.

Just look at what you wrote in the other thread i mentioned.

 

 

If the Indian government goes against Pakistan it should be clear that the Indian government itself is part of the conspiracy. Pakistan's president Asif Ali Zardari clearly says, these are terrorists which have to eliminated. Manmohan Singh, India's president says, no, this is an attack originating from Pakistan's government. In other words, like Bush, he uses terrorism to start a war.

 

Just read it.

[suchandra]

 

Suchandra, i know you have a difficulty in reading what you wrote and the response of others.

Just look at what you wrote in the other thread i mentioned.

 

 

 

Just read it.

 

I understand know, yourself, jeffster, bhaktajan, you all see things from the karmi platform because you are all karmis. Therefore you're correct from your karmi platform of seeing things it might look as you say, right.

[jeffster]

Suchandra: Just because we differ in our reading of these events, and just because you cannot defeat us in this debate is no reason to call us karmis.

jeffster/AMd

[chandu_69]

Speculation is spiritual and

 

factual information is karmic...

 

my ..my .. my ...

 

Incorrigible.

[suchandra]

 

Suchandra: Just because we differ in our reading of these events, and just because you cannot defeat us in this debate is no reason to call us karmis.

jeffster/AMd

You didn't prove anything what you claim is the truth. It is all your subjective opinion, and then you say I cannot defeat your opinion? Please re-read what you posted above.

You just presented this as proof:

Pakistani intelligence chiefs have admitted that the terrorists involved in last week’s attack on Mumbai were Pakistani nationals the US has told India. Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has reportedly warned Pakistan to act urgently "otherwise, the US will act”.

For me your, "the US has told India", this doesn't say anything, sorry.

[jeffster]

Suchandra,

Actually, Suchandra, I am more here to report some facts than to argue with you, so from now on I will just make my report and refrain from dealing with your hysteria. The comment that "Pakistani intelligence chiefs have admitted..." was not my comment; but unless someone takes action against the Taliban soon, they WILL overun the whole of Pakistan, perhaps in as short a time as a few months. Today, Hillary Clinton, who is the current secretary of state, not Condi Rice, stated, and I paraphrase as accurately as I can, that the Pakistani government, by their lack of willingness to restrain the Taliban has basically abdicated power to them. Someone should constrain them and it should be Pakistan, but they are unwilling for the following reasons:

1.) they are ethnically the same as the Taliban

2.) they share the same religion, and even though most Pakistanis are revulsed by Taliban fundamentalism as much as you or I are, they are reluctant to criticise fellow Muslims, and may in fact hope that they bring Sharia law to the whole of Pakistan.

3.) The Pakistanis are afraid to confront the Taliban because they know that the Taliban will ruthlessly hunt down and kill any and all opposition.

4.) More than anything else the Pakistanis don't want to be seen by themselves or other Muslim nations as the lackeys of the infidel Americans.

5.) Muslims in general hate and want to destroy Al Hind - India, and they know that the current Pakistani government won't do it, other than to tacitly authorize a few stray forays of mayhem such as we saw recently in Mumbai, so they have a hidden desire for the Taliban to succeed, because they know the Taliban will follow no contraints in attempting to destroy their perceived enemies of India, Israel and the west.

So a peculiar dichotomy is now transpiring, in which the Pakistani government knows that it should restrain the Taliban, and actually likely have it within their power to do so, but for the above-stated reasons are frozen in inaction. Their default will allow the Taliban to ascend to power, as Hillary Clinton so astutely recognized.

jeffster/AMd

[jeffster]

Here is another report that just came out on the Talibanization of Pakistan. Thus far, the Pakistani military has mounted no serious opposition to the Taliban, so the Taliban have just gained another chunk of land closer to the capital. Let's hope that the Pakistani gov't and military wake up and do the right thing before it is too late.

 

www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/world/asia/23buner.html?_r=1&partner=MOREOVERNEWS&ei=5040

 

jeffster/AMd

[suchandra]

 

Here is another report that just came out on the Talibanization of Pakistan. Thus far, the Pakistani military has mounted no serious opposition to the Taliban, so the Taliban have just gained another chunk of land closer to the capital. Let's hope that the Pakistani gov't and military wake up and do the right thing before it is too late.

 

www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/world/asia/23buner.html?_r=1&partner=MOREOVERNEWS&ei=5040

 

jeffster/AMd

Ok, US has send today 21,000 more troops to Pakistan, hope things are under control now.

 

Clinton says Pakistan is abdicating to the Taliban

 

 

Arshad Mohammed – Reuters April 23, 2009

 

Pakistan's government has abdicated to the Taliban in agreeing to impose Islamic law in the Swat valley and the country now poses a "mortal threat" to the world, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday.

 

Surging violence across Pakistan and the spread of Taliban influence through its northwest are reviving concerns about the stability of the nuclear-armed country, an important U.S. ally vital to efforts to stabilize neighboring Afghanistan.

 

U.S. President Barack Obama, who on March 27 unveiled a new strategy that seeks to crush al Qaeda and Taliban militants in Afghanistan and those operating from across the border in Pakistan, meets the presidents of both countries May 6-7.

 

The talks illustrate U.S. anxiety that Afghanistan could again become a haven for al Qaeda militants to launch foreign attacks more than seven years after U.S.-led forces toppled the Afghan Taliban regime that sheltered the September 11 attackers.

 

Speaking to U.S. lawmakers, Clinton said the Pakistani government had to provide basic services to its people or risk seeing the Taliban, and other extremists, fill the vacuum.

 

 

 

 

<embed src="

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344">

 

Under pressure from conservatives, Zardari earlier this month signed a regulation imposing Islamic law in Swat, a northwestern valley once one of Pakistan's most popular tourist destinations.

 

Asked about the matter, Clinton bluntly replied: "I think that the Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists."

 

Speaking before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Clinton said, ominously, that the situation in Pakistan "poses a mortal threat to the security and safety of our country and the world."

 

Swat was a major tourist spot until 2007, when militants infiltrated the valley from strongholds on the Afghan border to the west in support of a radical cleric.

 

 

 

US DEPLOYING 21,000 MORE TROOPS

 

After inconclusive military offensives and a failed peace agreement, Pakistani authorities accepted an Islamist demand for sharia, or Islamic law, in February.

 

Teresita Schaffer, a former U.S. diplomat who served in Pakistan and now heads the South Asia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington, said many analysts share Clinton's assessment.

 

"There is deep concern in the U.S. government, and elsewhere in this country, about the implications of the deal in Swat," Schaffer said. "It represents a cession of state authority to people who have been slitting the throats of policemen in the public square."

 

Schaffer said she did not believe Clinton viewed the Pakistani state itself as a mortal threat.

 

Rather, she said Clinton may have been suggesting that events in the country, where militants are believed to have plotted foreign attacks and set off a series of domestic suicide bombings in the last month, threaten other nations.

 

The White House says the May 6-7 talks between Obama, Karzai and Zardari will include a three-way meeting. The talks represent the U.S. president's effort to ease tensions and forge more cooperation between the two countries.

 

Kabul has accused Islamabad of not doing enough to stop militants crossing the border to launch attacks in Afghanistan. However, ties have improved under Zardari, whose country is facing its own Islamist insurgency.

 

Obama has authorized the deployment of 21,000 additional U.S. troops and hundreds of new diplomatic and other civilian officials to Afghanistan to try to quell the Taliban insurgency in the south and the east of that country.

 

A senior U.S. commander said U.S. and NATO forces were close to achieving "irreversible momentum" in their battle with insurgents in eastern Afghanistan, saying this was partly due to an influx of some 4,000 U.S. troops to the area this year.

 

 

 

(Additional reporting by Sue Pleming, Andrew Gray, Matt Spetalnick and Paul Eckert; editing by Todd Eastham)

 

[jeffster]

More on the phenomenal rise of the Taliban within Pakistan:

 

www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/world/asia/24pstan.html?_r=1&partner=MOREOVERNEWS&ei=5040

 

jeffster/AMd

[suchandra]

Steve Watson, Thursday, March 5, 2009: The mainstream media has embraced suggestions of an “inside job”, as evidence continues to mount that Tuesday’s attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team was a carefully staged event, rather than a hit and run strike. Articles in the Independent, the Times, the Daily Mail, Agence France-Presse, and the Telegraph have today focused on unanswered questions and suspicious activity regarding the attack which which killed six police and two civilians, and wounded 19 people.

 

 

The evidence that the attack was carefully coordinated has been summarized as follows.

 

 

None of the 12 gunmen were killed or captured and CCTV footage has emerged of some of the attackers making a leisurely getaway from the scene in the aftermath of the assault, past an approaching police vehicle, without the security forces chasing them:

 

 

 

 

<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://services.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f8/1137883380" flashvars="videoId=14718587001&playerId=1137883380&viewerSecureGatewayURL=https://console.brightcove.com/services/amfgateway&servicesURL=http://services.brightcove.com/services&cdnURL=http://admin.brightcove.com&domain=embed&autoStart=false&" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412">

 

 

On the first two days of the Test match, the Sri Lanka and Pakistan team buses had left together. However, as umpire Chris Broad has revealed, on Tuesday the Pakistan bus left five minutes after the Sri Lanka bus.

 

 

“On this particular day, the Pakistan bus left five minutes after the Sri Lankan bus. Why?” Broad said. “It went through my mind as we were leaving the hotel: ‘Where is the Pakistan bus?”

 

 

Broad said Pakistan security forces had left the convoy vehicles like “sitting ducks” and that there was “not a sign of a policeman anywhere” when the attack began.

 

 

“There were times in the Karachi Test when the Sri Lankans went first and the Pakistanis went afterwards. But after this happened you think My God, did someone know something and they held the Pakistan bus back?” Broad added at a press conference yesterday.

 

 

Simon Taufel, an Australian umpire caught in the attack, also confirmed that their bus had been left unprotected once the assault began.

 

“You tell me why supposedly 20 armed commandos were in our convoy and when the team bus got going again, we were left on our own? I don’t have any answers to these questions.” Taufel said.

Another umpire, Steve Davis commented: “I saw a (man in) uniform with a pistol and I thought this is an insider come to do us away.”

The umpires were backed by Muttiah Muralitharan, the most successful bowler in Test history, who questioned whether the terrorists had inside information.

“Somehow in this incident there were no police with guns on the bus,” the Sri Lankan spinner told the radio station FIVEaa in Adelaide. “If someone was there with a gun we would have had a chance of defending ourselves.

“Normally all the buses go and we have four or five escorts. We left at 8.30am and Younus Khan [with the Pakistan team bus] at 8.35am. We divided into two - maybe they knew the information for the right time.” Muralitharan added.

These factors and comments have been presented by the mainstream media in a way that intimates that it is possible that Pakistani intelligence was involved in the attacks, or allowed them to happen.

Of course, this is a possibility, however, it should be noted that six Pakistani security officials were killed in the attack as they attempted to defend the Sri Lankan bus, and other witnesses such as Mehar Mohammed Khalil, the Pakistani driver of the Sri Lankan bus, have disputed the allegation that the Pakistani bus left five minutes later and that the police protection was not present.

Last November, after the Mumbai attacks took place, the corporate media and Indian authorities pointed the finger at Pakistani intelligence, providing a perfect pretext for expanded U.S. military aggression against the country, as promised by then President-elect Barack Obama.

However, as we revealed in our reports at the time, the evidence indicated that Indian authorities had aided the terrorists. It is interesting to note that the mainstream media did little to pursue this angle, yet this time around every major outlet has highlighted the “inside job” theory almost immediately.

Further questions regarding Tuesday’s attack have arisen from the leak of a “secret” report which fore-warned the federal and provincial Punjab governments that India was planning an attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team.

The report, dated Jan 22, warned officials: “It has reliably been learnt that RAW [the Research and Analysis Wing, India's intelligence agency] has assigned its agents the task to target Sri Lankan cricket team during its current visit to Lahore, especially while travelling between the hotel and stadium or at hotel during their stay … Extreme vigilance and heightened security arrangements indicated.”

However, the government in Punjab and its senior security officials, who were preparing for the Sri Lankan team’s visit, were removed from office by a controversial court ruling days ahead of the test match.

Rehman Malik, Pakistani chief interior ministry adviser, has claimed “a foreign hand” lay behind the attack on the cricketers – which has been widely interpreted as pointing the finger at India.

Malik said: “We suspect a foreign hand behind this incident. The democracy of the country has been undermined, and foreigners are repeatedly attacked to harm the country’s image.”

Malik is said to have “shared” the assessment of the country’s ISI intelligence agency with the FBI director Robert Mueller.

Some Pakistani newspapers have suggested that the Indian intelligence service was involved and that the weapons found at the site of the attack bore Indian markings.

Mehar Mohammed Khalil, the Pakistani driver of the Sri Lankan bus, has also said he believes the terrorists are from India. He said: ‘Their complexions were Indian-type. They were definitely not Pakistani.’

Furthermore, it has been pointed out that similarities exist between the estimated 12 suspected militants who launched the attack in Lahore and those who launched the Mumbai attacks which left more than 170 people dead last year. Both groups of men were young and clean-cut, wore Western clothes and backpacks, and were heavily armed.

The Press Trust of India has reported that a visiting Pakistani peace delegation has branded the incident as “Mumbai No 2 with same people behind it”.

With allegations of Pakistani intelligence involvement and Indian intelligence involvement, it must also be noted that the region is strategically important, both states are nuclear and other globalist led intelligence agencies such as the CIA, Mossad and MI6 have much to gain from playing off India and Pakistan against each other.

However, once again, the overriding story that is being sold paints Pakistan as the problem state.

Will this latest tragedy be used as another excuse to expand the war on terror and increase U.S. military activity inside Pakistani territory?

Yesterday the top American diplomat in Kabul warned that Pakistan is now a bigger threat than Afghanistan.

“From where I sit [Pakistan] sure looks like it’s going to be a bigger problem,” Christopher Dell, who runs the U.S. embassy in Kabul, said.

“It is certainly one of those nuclear-armed countries the instability of which is a bigger problem for the globe. Pakistan is a bigger place, has a larger population, it’s nuclear-armed. It has certainly made radical Islam a part of its political life, and it now seems to be a deeply ingrained element of its political culture. It makes things there very hard.”

[chandu_69]

Suchandra highlights

 

"the evidence indicated that Indian authorities had aided the terrorists"..

What evidence.Let us discuss.

[suchandra]

 

Suchandra highlights

 

"the evidence indicated that Indian authorities had aided the terrorists"..

What evidence.Let us discuss.

Evidence? Guess there's no real evidence in politics, there are rather irregularities which raise suspicion.

Just like bankers have to finance both sides of every war, and Afghanistan/Pakistan is no exception. As they have pilfered the US government's credit card, this means the American tax payer is paying for the Taliban.

 

And since Barack Obama is sending an additional 68,000 soldiers there, "over the next several years", this won't be small change.

 

The role of US "leadership" is to shepherd these funds through Congress i.e. the credit card terminal. Last week, Hillary Clinton sounded like she was criticizing Pakistan but she was actually campaigning for $7.5 billion in economic aid and $3 billion in military assistance for Pakistan over the next five years. She said this money is needed for more "government services." No doubt, this includes payment for providing America with an enemy.

 

However, the bankers love to hide in plain sight. Just Google "Pakistan Aid to Taliban" and discover what US legislators and media pretend they don't know. The Taliban is financed, trained and run by Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence Agency, ISI. The ISI is a branch of the CIA, In October 2006, NATO clearly identified the Taliban as an ISI operation:

 

"NATO is now mapping the entire Taliban support structure in Balochistan, from ISI - run training camps near Quetta to huge ammunition dumps, arrival points for Taliban's new weapons and meeting places of the shura, or leadership council, in Quetta, which is headed by Mullah Mohammed Omar, the group's leader since its creation a dozen years ago.

 

In Panjwai the Taliban had also established a training camp to teach guerrillas how to penetrate Kandahar, a separate camp to train suicide bombers and a full surgical field hospital. NATO estimated the cost of Taliban ammunition stocks at around £2.6 million. "The Taliban could not have done this on their own without the ISI," said a senior NATO officer."

 

This may explain why Pakistan which has an army of 500,000 and a like number of reservists, has shown no appetite for confronting the Taliban. The country is probably run by the ISI.

 

In August 2008, George W. Bush read the riot act to the Pakistanis (wink, wink):

 

"President George W Bush confronted Yusuf Raza Gillani, Pakistan's prime minister, in Washington last week with evidence of involvement by the ISI, its military intelligence, in a deadly attack on the Afghan capital and warned of retaliation if it continues. ... Gillani, on his first official US visit since being elected in February, was left in no doubt that the Bush administration had lost patience with the ISI's alleged double game."

 

Paradoxically, the US is using the Taliban as an excuse to fund the Pakistanis! Last week:

 

"Gen. David Petraeus urged Congress to approve $3 billion in aid to Pakistan for training its troops to fight insurgents in tribal areas. The most important, most pressing threat to the very existence of their country is the threat posed by the internal extremists and groups such as the Taliban and the syndicated extremists," Petraeus told a House panel Friday. Petraeus is the top U.S. commander overseeing troops in Pakistan and Afghanistan."

 

So let's see if we can keep this straight. The US is fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan while using the Taliban as an excuse to fund Pakistan who is maintaining the Taliban. (From Pakistani viewpoint, the Taliban is the reason they are getting all this money.)

 

Meanwhile Pakistan is a nuclear power. But it is not our enemy. We are about to blow up the Middle East because Iran might become a nuclear power.

 

Related, The British May be Helping ISI Train the Taliban

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/revealed-british-plan-to-build-training-camp-for-taliban-fighters-in-afghanistan-777671.html

 

The Taliban Opium Connection

http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/05/14/the_taliban_opium_connection/2650/

 

"NATO Spooked by Afghan Laws Upholding Patriarchy"

[chandu_69]

 

Evidence? <b>Guess there's no real evidence</b> in politics, there are rather irregularities which raise suspicion.

 

 

Why are u attracted to guessing work???.Why do u high light the guess work as EVIDENCE????

 

Did prabhupada teach you to revel in blogs with wild guesses?

 

Is that the spirituality he taught you???.

 

Why dont spend time in chants instead of spamming the forum

with copy pastes from masala blogs???

[suchandra]

 

Why are u attracted to guessing work???.Why do u high light the guess work as EVIDENCE????

 

Did prabhupada teach you to revel in blogs with wild guesses?

 

Is that the spirituality he taught you???.

 

Why dont spend time in chants instead of spamming the forum

with copy pastes from masala blogs???

Article above seems to have defeated you, therefore you come up with personal insult.

Hopefully the readers of the forum can see through your character.

[suchandra]

Summary by John Mueller:

 

The Taliban and al Qaeda may not pose enough of a threat to the United States to make a long war in Afghanistan worth the costs.

 

 

JOHN MUELLER is Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University. Among his books are Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them and the forthcoming Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al Qaeda.

 

 

 

George W. Bush led the United States into war in Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein might give his country’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. Now, Bush’s successor is perpetuating the war in Afghanistan with comparably dubious arguments about the danger posed by the Taliban and al Qaeda.

President Barack Obama insists that the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is about "making sure that al Qaeda cannot attack the U.S. homeland and U.S. interests and our allies" or "project violence against" American citizens. The reasoning is that if the Taliban win in Afghanistan, al Qaeda will once again be able to set up shop there to carry out its dirty work. As the president puts it, Afghanistan would "again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can." This argument is constantly repeated but rarely examined; given the costs and risks associated with the Obama administration’s plans for the region, it is time such statements be given the scrutiny they deserve.

Multiple sources, including Lawrence Wright's book The Looming Tower, make clear that the Taliban was a reluctant host to al Qaeda in the 1990s and felt betrayed when the terrorist group repeatedly violated agreements to refrain from issuing inflammatory statements and fomenting violence abroad. Then the al Qaeda-sponsored 9/11 attacks -- which the Taliban had nothing to do with -- led to the toppling of the Taliban’s regime. Given the Taliban’s limited interest in issues outside the "AfPak" region, if they came to power again now, they would be highly unlikely to host provocative terrorist groups whose actions could lead to another outside intervention. And even if al Qaeda were able to relocate to Afghanistan after a Taliban victory there, it would still have to operate under the same siege situation it presently enjoys in what Obama calls its "safe haven" in Pakistan.

The very notion that al Qaeda needs a secure geographic base to carry out its terrorist operations, moreover, is questionable. After all, the operational base for 9/11 was in Hamburg, Germany. Conspiracies involving small numbers of people require communication, money, and planning -- but not a major protected base camp.

Given the Taliban’s limited interest in issues outside the “AfPak” region, if it came to power again now, it would be highly unlikely to host provocative terrorist groups whose actions could lead to another outside intervention.

At present, al Qaeda consists of a few hundred people running around in Pakistan, seeking to avoid detection and helping the Taliban when possible. It also has a disjointed network of fellow travelers around the globe who communicate over the Internet. Over the last decade, the group has almost completely discredited itself in the Muslim world due to the fallout from the 9/11 attacks and subsequent counterproductive terrorism, much of it directed against Muslims. No convincing evidence has been offered publicly to show that al Qaeda Central has put together a single full operation anywhere in the world since 9/11. And, outside of war zones, the violence perpetrated by al Qaeda affiliates, wannabes, and lookalikes combined has resulted in the deaths of some 200 to 300 people per year, and may be declining. That is 200 to 300 too many, of course, but it scarcely suggests that "the safety of people around the world is at stake," as Obama dramatically puts it.

In addition, al Qaeda has yet to establish a significant presence in the United States. In 2002, U.S. intelligence reports asserted that the number of trained al Qaeda operatives in the United States was between 2,000 and 5,000, and FBI Director Robert Mueller assured a Senate committee that al Qaeda had "developed a support infrastructure" in the country and achieved both "the ability and the intent to inflict significant casualties in the U.S. with little warning." However, after years of well funded sleuthing, the FBI and other investigative agencies have been unable to uncover a single true al Qaeda sleeper cell or operative within the country. Mueller's rallying cry has now been reduced to a comparatively bland formulation: "We believe al Qaeda is still seeking to infiltrate operatives into the U.S. from overseas."

Even that may not be true. Since 9/11, some two million foreigners have been admitted to the United States legally and many others, of course, have entered illegally. Even if border security has been so effective that 90 percent of al Qaeda’s operatives have been turned away or deterred from entering the United States, some should have made it in -- and some of those, it seems reasonable to suggest, would have been picked up by law enforcement by now. The lack of attacks inside the United States combined with the inability of the FBI to find any potential attackers suggests that the terrorists are either not trying very hard or are far less clever and capable than usually depicted.

Policymakers and the public at large should keep in mind the words of Glenn Carle, a 23 year veteran of the CIA who served as deputy national intelligence officer for transnational threats: "We must see jihadists for the small, lethal, disjointed and miserable opponents that they are." Al Qaeda "has only a handful of individuals capable of planning, organizing and leading a terrorist operation," Carle notes, and "its capabilities are far inferior to its desires."

President Obama has said that there is also a humanitarian element to the Afghanistan mission. A return of the Taliban, he points out, would condemn the Afghan people "to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights." This concern is legitimate -- the Afghan people appear to be quite strongly opposed to a return of the Taliban, and they are surely entitled to some peace after 30 years of almost continual warfare, much of it imposed on them from outside.

The problem, as Obama is doubtlessly well aware, is that Americans are far less willing to sacrifice lives for missions that are essentially humanitarian than for those that seek to deal with a threat directed at the United States itself. People who embrace the idea of a humanitarian mission will continue to support Obama's policy in Afghanistan -- at least if they think it has a chance of success -- but many Americans (and Europeans) will increasingly start to question how many lives such a mission is worth.

This questioning, in fact, is well under way. Because of its ties to 9/11, the war in Afghanistan has enjoyed considerably greater public support than the war in Iraq did (or, for that matter, the wars in Korea or Vietnam). However, there has been a considerable dropoff in that support of late. If Obama's national security justification for his war in Afghanistan comes to seem as spurious as Bush's national security justification for his war in Iraq, he, like Bush, will increasingly have only the humanitarian argument to fall back on. And that is likely to be a weak reed.<!-- /node-inner, /node --><!--googleoff: index--><!--googleoff: snippet-->