Are the bad guys winning?

[Mickey]

The following list is taken from “Imperial Hubris” by Anonymous, the same person who wrote “Through Our Enemies’ Eyes” and who has since been identified as CIA Senior Analyst Michael Scheuer. He lists terrorist victories since 9/11. I have reproduced them more or less here although I have removed most references to what are essentially political victories. One item of note is the murder of 2 US citizens at LAX in July of 2001. I believe I have heard a number of people claim there has been no terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. I also had no idea until I saw it in black and white just how bad things have been for the Russians. That is interesting in that they were as against the Iraq war as France was. Also, the French have been hit a few times and maybe that should be remembered the next time someone on the board, for like the zillionth tiresome time, comes up with what he thinks is a new and clever insult to them. The author’s point is that we are essentially losing the so called war on terrorism. I haven’t finished the book yet but from what I can see he is advocating a much harsher approach than what we are doing now. He sees our efforts in Afghanistan as largely a failure that will eventually become a disaster and the same with Iraq. In any event, with terrorist inflicted casualties around 1,368 dead and 3,971 injured which only covers up to March of this year, he may have a point that we are not winning this war.

 

12/1/01-12/15: OBL and most of AQ’s fighters escape into Pakistan when the Northern Alliance fails to engage them in the Tora Bora Mountains.

 

1/23/02: Daniel Pearl is abducted and eventually killed.

 

2/27-3/2: Rioting Muslims in India burn passenger train killing 58 Hindus who, in response go on a rampage killing more than 2,000 muslims. OBL uses incident as proof the West doesn’t care about Muslims.

 

3/3-3/18: US offensive at Shahi Kowt, Afghanistan fails and AQ fighters escape to Pakistan. US claims 700-1,000 killed but subsequently, only 24 or so bodies of the enemy are found.

 

3/17: Protestant International Church in Islamabad, Pakistan is attacked, 5 dead and 46 wounded.

 

4/5: 4,000 men protest in Riyadh against Saudi gov’t support for US.

 

4/11: A synagogue in Tunisia is hit with a truck bomb, 21 dead.

 

4/17: Chechen guerillas kill 6 soldiers in a village near Grozny.

 

4/18: Chechen guerillas use a land mine to kill 17 soldiers in Grozny.

 

5/8: A car bomb is used in Karachi against a minibus carrying French naval technicians, 13 dead (including 11 Frenchmen), 24 are wounded.

 

6/17: A car bomb in Karachi is used outside the US Consulate, 11 dead and 42 wounded.

 

7/4: Two US citizens are killed at LAX airport at the

El Al counter, the killer is taken out by El Al security. Why do I keep hearing that there has been no terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11?

 

7/13: Manshera, Pakistan: a grenade is thrown at an archaeological site: 12 wounded.

 

8/5: Christian school for the children of foreign aid workers is raided in Islamabad, 6 staff killed.

 

8/10: Taxila, Pakistan: Christian church is bombed: 5 dead, 25 wounded.

 

 

10/6: Suicide bomber sails an explosives filled boat into a French Tanker, the Limburg, in the Gulf of Aden. One crew member is killed, 90,000 gallons of crude spill and $45 Million in damages to the tanker.

 

10/2: 1 Marine killed and 1 wounded on Faylaka Island in Kuwait, the assailants are also killed.

 

10/12: Jemaah Islamiya (JI), an Idonesian group allied with AQ, uses a suicide bomb at a nightclub in Bali, 200 dead, many are Australians.

 

10/23-10/26: Chechen terrorists seize a theatre in Moscow. 129 innocent people died and all the terrorists were killed (over 40 of them).

 

10/28: Laurence Foley, US Embassy employee is murdered in Amman, Jordan by a Libyan and a Jordanian with ties to Musab al-Zarqawi, allies of AQ and Ansar al-Islam.

 

11/20: American Nurse is killed at a Christian church in Sidon, Lebanon (Bonnie Weatherall), she had been accused of trying to convert Muslims to Christianity.

 

11/20-11/23: Muslim rioting in Nigeria over the Miss World pageant being held there results in 220 dead, 1,500 wounded.

 

11/21: Kuwaiti policeman wounds two US soldiers he had pulled over, he runs to Saudi Arabia who returns him.

 

11/28: Suicide car bomb attack against Israeli owned hotel in Mombassa, Kenya and a SAM is fired at a Boeng 757 that was also Israeli owned. 15 dead at hotel, 40 wounded. The missile missed but there were 261 Israeli’s aboard.

 

12/27: Yemen’s Socialist Party chief who favored a secularist government is assassinated by Islamist looking for Paradise.

 

12/27: Suicide car bomb attack by Chechen terrorists in Grozny against party headquarters of Russian backed regime, 60 dead and 100+ wounded.

 

12/30: Jiblah Hospital in Yemen is attacked. 3 dead and 1 wounded. Hospital run for 30 years by Southern Baptist, attack is allegedly in retaliation for their attempts to convert Muslims.

 

2003:

 

1/21: 1 US civilian contractor killed, 1 wounded when ambushed in their car in Kuwait. Attacker flees to Saudia Arabia where he is captured and returned. Claims to have done it as a gift to OBL.

 

2/17: Dr. Hamid bin-Abd-al-Rhaman al-Wardi, a US educated deputy governor of a province in Saudi Arabia is assassinated.

 

2/20: British Aerospace employee Robert Dent is assassinated in his car at a red light in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

 

2/21: Cyanide containing envelopes sent to US embassy in New Zealand.

 

2/28: Pakistani police guarding US Consulate in Karachi are attacked, 2 dead and 5 wounded.

 

3/18: Four Hunt Oil employees are attacked in Yemen. 3 killed and 1 wounded.

 

3/20: US invades Iraq. OBL reportedly is ecstatic because the “…enemy is now spread out, close at hand and easy to target.”

 

3/25: Two Saudi security officers attacked in al-Jawf province. 1 dead, 1 wounded.

 

4/11: 10, TEN!!! AQ fighters suspected of involvement in the Cole attack escape a Yemeni “high security” prison.

 

5/1-6/1: Chechen insurgents go on the offensive and attack Russian forces across the board. 32 killed, 8 wounded. During the attack the Russians defused 120 or so explosive devices.

 

5/12: Suicide truck bomb attacks Chechen government buildings in Znamenskoye. 59 dead, 197 wounded.

 

5/16: Five teams of Islamist terrorists attack in various places in Casablanca. Most are suicide bombers. Group received $50,000 from AQ. 46 dead, 100 wounded.

 

6/5: Female Chechen suicide bomber hits a bus in Mozdok, Russia. 20 dead, 15 wounded.

 

6/7: A taxi in Kabul blows up killing 4 German Stabilization and Assistance Force troops. 29 wounded.

7/5: Two female Chechen suicide bombers hit an airfield in Moscow. 16 dead, 20 wounded.

 

8/1: Suicide truck bomb at a Military Hospital in Mozdok. 50 dead, 64 wounded.

 

8/5: Suicide bomber attacks the Marriott hotel in Jakarta. Fortunately the bomber detonated the device early. “Only” 10 dead and 152 wounded.

 

8/7: The Joradanian embassy in Iraq in Baghdad is attacked with a car bomb. The perimeter wall keeps attack from being worse than it was. As it is, 19 killed and 65 wounded.

 

8/20: Suicide truck bomb Rosened into UN HQ in Baghdad at the Canal Hotel. The UN Special Rep. to Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello is killed. All told, 23 dead and over 100 wounded. AQ claims responsibility.

 

8/25: Two taxis packed with explosive known as RDX explode in India in two different places with 15 minutes of eachother. 53 dead, 190 wounded. The 4 men arrested in the attacks are members of a terrorist Muslim group allied with AQ.

 

Sept-Oct: Egypt releases 113 Islamists from prison and Yemen releases 1,000. Supposedly they had “repented”. They are suspected to be headed for Iraq. Action is eerily similar to when Arab governments released Islamists from jail on condition that they would go to Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet occupation.

 

9/11: Islamist terrorist group in Algeria which had long concentrated just on attacks against their own government announces allegiance to OBL and Mullah Omar (Taliban leader) and concentration of efforts in the future against US interests.

 

9/11-9/13: Two Jews murdered in Morocco, attacks linked to Salafia Jihadia group.

 

10/26-10/27: Rocket attack against Al-Rashid hotel in Baghdad on 10/26 kills 1 US soldier and wounds 17. On the 27th, Red Cross and 4 Baghdad police stations are hit by car bombs all within 45 minutes. A fifth station was saved when suicide car bomber is shot. 35 dead, 224 wounded.

 

11/12: Italian Military Police HQ in Nasiriya, Iraq is hit with a truck bomb. 29 dead, over 100 wounded.

11/15: Two Synagogues are attacked by car bombers in Istanbul, Turkey. 23 dead, 303 wounded.

 

11/20: British Consulate and HSBC Bank in Istanbul hit by car bombers. 27 dead and 450 wounded.

 

11/30: 7 Spanish intel officers killed near Baghdad and 2 Japanese diplomats are killed in Tikrit.

 

12/5: Female Chechen suicide bomber hits commuter train in Stavropol. 42 dead and 100 wounded.

 

12/14: Pro-west Pakistani President Musharraf survives assassination attempt when a land mine is detonated on his travel route.

 

12/25: Musharraf survives a second attempt when his convoy his hit by two suicide car bombers.

 

 

2004:

 

1/27-28: Suicide car bombs on successive days in Kabul, Afghanistan 2 dead and 7 wounded.

 

2/1: Two suicide bombers blow themselves up in the HQs of the two main Kurdish political parties at Irbil, Iraq. 110 dead, 250 wounded.

 

2/6: Chechen suicide bomber on a Moscow subway. 39 dead, 134 wounded.

 

3/11: AQ detonates 10 bombs simultaneously in Madrid on four commuter trains. 191 dead, 1,200 wounded. A few days later the Spanish government is voted out and Spain withdraws from Iraq.

 

3/15: 4 Southern Baptist Missionaries are killed in Mosul, Iraq.

 

3/28-3/31: Over three days multiple bombs are detonated in the Uzbekistan capital of Tashkent. 14 dead and 35 wounded.

 

 

The depressing total is 295 killed and 200 wounded between 9/11 and the

invasion of Iraq not including actions by Chechen terrorists/insurgents or general

mayhem in India. Since then, there have been 603 killed and 3,133 wounded. The total since 9/11 is 898 dead and 3,333 wounded. Adding in the 470 dead and 638 wounded in Russia/Chechnya, not including the most recent horrific attack, and you end up with 1,368 dead and 3,971 injured. Also consider that 1,113 Islamists were released or escaped from prison, there were two attempts on the life of our most critically important ally in the area (Musharraf) along with 2,278 dead and 1,500 wounded in India. Don’t forget the cyanide and the 261 Israeli souls who narrowly escaped that missile fired at the 757. If that isn’t an ominous development, I don’t know what is. Missiles being fired at passenger jets is not, as far as I know, a threat against which we currently have a defense.

 

If the war in Iraq was to help us win the war on terrorism, why have casualties (not including India and Chechnya) gone from 495 before the invasion to 3,736 since the war started?

 

The idea that we have AQ or terrorists in general on the run is mistaken.

[Bob Lamb]

The idea that we have AQ or terrorists in general on the run is mistaken.

20308[/snapback]

 

Where's the list of "stats" for the other side ?

[Alaska Darin]

No.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

There IS NO WINNER when it comes to terrorism, because ANYONE can find the means to get weapons and to administer instant violence. We will NEVER WIN a war that is impossible to win... It is an incurable disease that we can only hope to CONTAIN. We are just now recently calling it terrorism, but its been happening since the beginnings of warfare in civilization. To assume that the world has been free of terrorism before the 20th century is a wrong assumption.

 

I have recently posted that OBL did NOT inflict the first terrorist act in the United States. The Haymarket Square bombing was my example, and lo and behold, here it is on Encarta's website, under the definition of TERRORISM.

 

Encarta TERRORISM

 

It's not a new idea folks, and you'd better get used to it happening. It won't go away, no matter HOW MUCH intelligence or HOW MANY men we have. We can only hope to prevent as many as we can.

 

I am shocked that anyone can assume that we are winning anything, or losing anything.

[Mickey]

The idea that we have AQ or terrorists in general on the run is mistaken.

20308[/snapback]

 

Where's the list of "stats" for the other side ?

20319[/snapback]

 

I'd post his list of wins but it is comparatively short and unlike these inicidents, the positives have been well covered in the press and trumpeted by the administration.

 

Mostly they consist of nabbing some higher ups in AQ and driving the Taliban from the cities in Afghanistan. The author sees these as temporary wins as the Taliban is up and running again and AQ easily replaces the leaders they lose.

[Mickey]

There IS NO WINNER when it comes to terrorism, because ANYONE can find the means to get weapons and to administer instant violence. We will NEVER WIN a war that is impossible to win... It is an incurable disease that we can only hope to CONTAIN. We are just now recently calling it terrorism, but its been happening since the beginnings of warfare in civilization. To assume that the world has been free of terrorism before the 20th century is a wrong assumption.

 

I have recently posted that OBL did NOT inflict the first terrorist act in the United States. The Haymarket Square bombing was my example, and lo and behold, here it is on Encarta's website, under the definition of TERRORISM.

 

Encarta TERRORISM

 

It's not a new idea folks, and you'd better get used to it happening. It won't go away, no matter HOW MUCH intelligence or HOW MANY men we have. We can only hope to prevent as many as we can.

 

I am shocked that anyone can assume that we are winning anything, or losing anything.

20382[/snapback]

 

I don't care what you call success in this struggle, whether you call it "winning" or "containment". Are we winning? Are we containing? We see terrorist strikes from LAX to Chechnya, from Kabul to Riyadh. Is this an acceptable level of containment? This isn't a political debate, it is a debate on tactics.

[OGTEleven]

I don't care what you call success in this struggle, whether you call it "winning" or "containment".  Are we winning?  Are we containing?  We see terrorist strikes from LAX to Chechnya, from Kabul to Riyadh.  Is this an acceptable level of containment?  This isn't a political debate, it is a debate on tactics.

20415[/snapback]

 

Winning/losing, containing or not?

 

I think the only way you'd be able to tell for sure would be to create a parallel universe or two and try a few different approaches. Has our effort and the effort of other countries been perfect? No. Should we expect perfection?

 

I haven't read the book you're reading but I'd hope the author would at least offer (detailed) alternative actions if he's being so critical.

[MichFan]

Kind of easy to make it look bad when you post a list of every terror strike that has been successful since 9/11 and when probably 99.9% of terror plots that have been prevented since then remain classified.

 

Also, it is an interesting proposal that the time to track terrorism started with 9/11. It reflects the type of thinking we can't afford to put in office right now. At least one candidate's administration understands the history of global terrorism and that there is a big picture in this war on terror that is so much more than capturing bin Laden and getting the French on board.

[Bill from NYC]

Well Mick, here is one good way to go about killing filth scumbags.

Here's to the hope that the other 30 perish. GO ISRAEL!!!!!!!

[DC Tom]

I'd post his list of wins but it is comparatively short and unlike these inicidents, the positives have been well covered in the press and trumpeted by the administration.

20411[/snapback]

 

Anyone else see the folly in the assumption underlying this statement?

[KD in CA]

          Anyone else see the folly in the assumption underlying this statement?

20504[/snapback]

 

 

I was just about to reply to him on that exact point....shoulda figured you or Darin would beat me to it. The irony is amazing....the very existance of this list contradicts his whole point. Terrorist 'wins' are not well covered by the American media? Yeah....right. There is not a single event on that list that I hadn't heard about before.

 

Conversely, with the exception of the handful of arrests of top AQ boys, we've heard little on the other wins, particularly in Afghanistan, probably because they entail bombing the stevestojan out of some cave and burying scores of these bastards alive. That probably won't fit in with the proposed 'compassionate war on teror'.

[Mickey]

Winning/losing, containing or not?

 

I think the only way you'd be able to tell for sure would be to create a parallel universe or two and try a few different approaches.  Has our effort and the effort of other countries been perfect?  No.  Should we expect perfection? 

 

I haven't read the book you're reading but I'd hope the author would at least offer (detailed) alternative actions if he's being so critical.

20484[/snapback]

 

He does offer alternatives but I haven't been through them all yet. Basically though, his approach is much tougher, much more violent than what we have been doing. Because I started this thread I think some of you guys are assuming this is an attack on the administration or an argument on behalf of Kerry. It isn't. I'm pretty sure this author would have nothing good to say about Kerry and how he would likely fight this war.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Well Mick, here is one good way to go about killing filth scumbags.

Here's to the hope that the other 30 perish. GO ISRAEL!!!!!!!

20501[/snapback]

The unfortunate truth is that action like this, while it appears to be the right thing to do, is just going to breed more resentment and terrorist acts.

Read this quote from the article:

In an unusually strong statement, Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia warned that that airstrike would bring Hamas retaliation, which he said would be "justified."

I don't know what the answer is, but just killing these people hasn't seemed to do the trick. And "kill all Muslims" is not an option, unless you feel strongly that we need to hasten the end of the world.

[Mickey]

Kind of easy to make it look bad when you post a list of every terror strike that has been successful since 9/11 and when probably 99.9% of terror plots that have been prevented since then remain classified.

 

Also, it is an interesting proposal that the time to track terrorism started with 9/11.  It reflects the type of thinking we can't afford to put in office right now.  At least one candidate's administration understands the history of global terrorism and that there is a big picture in this war on terror that is so much more than capturing bin Laden and getting the French on board.

20488[/snapback]

 

"Anonymous" wrote two books, this is the second and it picks up where the first ("Through our enemies' eyes") left off. The writer has been working on these issues for the CIA since way before 9/11. In fact, the first book was submitted to the publisher 3 months before the 9/11 attacks. In any event, 9/11 is, however, when we declared a war on terrorism. I see nothing wrong with looking at what has happened since. In fact, not looking comprehensively at terrorist attacks since we have been so focused on the struggle or to just dismiss them would be kind of idiotic from an intelligence perspective. The author, I am pretty sure, would have nothing good to say about John Kerry and how he would conduct this struggle. This is not an issue of who should be in the WH for the next four years. If at all possible, lets stay away from the "Bush good, Kerry bad" stuff for once.

[SilverNRed]

          Anyone else see the folly in the assumption underlying this statement?

20504[/snapback]

 

Yes, you beat me to it.

[tennesseeboy]

Bad guys winning? I thought you were talking about Bush and Cheney!

[Mickey]

I was just about to reply to him on that exact point....shoulda figured you or Darin would beat me to it.  The irony is amazing....the very existance of this list contradicts his whole point.  Terrorist 'wins' are not well covered by the American media?    Yeah....right.  There is not a single event on that list that I hadn't heard about before.

 

Conversely, with the exception of the handful of arrests of top AQ boys, we've heard little on the other wins, particularly in Afghanistan, probably because they entail bombing the stevestojan out of some cave and burying scores of these bastards alive.  That probably won't fit in with the proposed 'compassionate war on teror'.

20525[/snapback]

 

I see, so you are assuming that we have had huge wins that we just don't know about for one reason or another? "Probably because..." Wouldn't the simple answer be because there just haven't been that many? I am not proposing or advocating whatever you think is a "compassionate war on terror", quite the contrary in fact. What I am leading up to is that maybe we aren't being hard enough.

 

The administration claims we are "safer" due to its efforts, by what measure? Seems to me to be a pretty amorphous assertion. One pragmatic, practical way of looking at that is examining all the terrorist attacks that have happened since we declared war on terrorism. These attacks happen so frequently that I think the impact gets diluted. Just another media report on another suicide car bomber. One after the other, they just blend into the chatter. Every so often an attack is devastating enough that it catches our attention but a lot of them get very little notice. You've heard of them. Great. They are not discussed much here. I thought putting them all together in one place to see the larger picture would be helpful.

 

Sure, the Madrid attack was big news here but the primary angle that was discussed heavily was whether it was good, bad or indifferent that Spain was going to pull out of Iraq. The real story was that AQ was alive and well and able to kill in mass numbers despite all of our efforts to the contrary. I didn't hear that issue discussed much here on the board. I do remember a lot of "the Spanish are pussies if they pull out" stuff. A fascinating discussion I tried to stay away from.

 

I am sure there have been a few wins we haven't heard of and a few losses we haven't heard of as well. I don't see any point in debating what neither of us know. All we can work with are the facts we do have and the reasonable inferences that can be derived from those facts. What I posted is a list of facts. I'll leave the "proably because" stuff to you.

[MichFan]

If at all possible, lets stay away from the "Bush good, Kerry bad" stuff for once.

 

This topic reads "Are the bad guys winning?". The initial post lists terrorist events that have occurred since 9/11. You are well established as an anti-Bush personality. I guess you are suggesting that this topic was not started to question the direction and leadership in the war on terror. Sorry if I saw this as a veiled attempt to make a point for your side and it really wasn't.

 

Who the heck really knows if we are winning other than a few people with access to all the information needed to make that assessment? The author does not have access to current inside information, so he doesn't even know himself. His books are based on his knowledge being inside intelligence circles in the 80's combined with his reseach into current events. Probably interesting reads, but surely some considerable gaps in thinking.

 

I think the more important questions are ones like who will best wage the war on terror over the next four years? Who will appoint justices to federal courts that support the war on terror (you mean there's something more important for courts to consider than abortion )? Who's foreign policy will do better at keeping Americans safe? An incomplete view of the war on terror since 9/11 doesn't help answer these questions in the best interest of America.

[Mickey]

This topic reads "Are the bad guys winning?".  The initial post lists terrorist events that have occurred since 9/11.  You are well established as an anti-Bush personality.  I guess you are suggesting that this topic was not started to question the direction and leadership in the war on terror.  Sorry if I saw this as a veiled attempt to make a point for your side and it really wasn't.

 

Who the heck really knows if we are winning other than a few people with access to all the information needed to make that assessment?  The author does not have access to current inside information, so he doesn't even know himself.  His books are based on his knowledge being inside intelligence circles in the 80's combined with his reseach into current events.  Probably interesting reads, but surely some considerable gaps in thinking.

 

I think the more important questions are ones like who will best wage the war on terror over the next four years?  Who will appoint justices to federal courts that support the war on terror (you mean there's something more important for courts to consider than abortion )?  Who's foreign policy will do better at keeping Americans safe?  An incomplete view of the war on terror since 9/11 doesn't help answer these questions in the best interest of America.

20634[/snapback]

 

The author is still working for the CIA. You are simply assuming that he no longer works there. The CIA vetted his book before publication. He is not a disgruntled former official. He is still working on this. As for his view being "incomplete", that is again an assumption. Besides, none of us have a complete view, all we can do is review what we have and go from there. What are you suggesting? Should we ignore what we do know because we don't know everything? Should there be a moratorium on discussing this issue because our information is less than absolute?

 

Read my posts in this thread and you will see that I don't credit Kerry with any better of an idea than Bush as to how to fight this war. What scares me is that neither seems to realize what we are up against. Bush is obsessed with the idea that the only dangerous terrorists are those that are supported by rogue states when it seems clear that stateless terrorists are just as able to cause mass casualties.

 

A complete unwillingness to discuss what isn't going right with this war for fear that it might possibly reflect, even the tiniest bit, negatively on Bush is not, imho, in the best interests of America.

[MichFan]

The author is still working for the CIA. You are simply assuming that he no longer works there.

Is this guy still working in the CIA or is he working for the CIA as a consultant?

 

Bush is obsessed with the idea that the only dangerous terrorists are those that are supported by rogue states when it seems clear that stateless terrorists are just as able to cause mass casualties.

Bush understands that the most dangerous terrorists to America are those supported by rogue states because they can focus all their energy outside of their country. When their own government is trying to defeat them, they won't be as likely to divert their attention to us. Look at Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and Russia. Aggressive wars are being waged in these countries on terrorists. Do you think these terrorists are thinking about ways of striking NYC right now? Do you think Chechnian terrorists are coming after us for supporting Putin? Palestinians for our support of Israel? If we were to get hit tommorrow, it is most likely that the planning would have taken place in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, or still untouched regions of Western Pakistan. These are places where a war is not yet being aggressively waged, and where they are thinking about us. How are the U.N. and France going to do anything about these places? Resolutions don't do squat against terrorists. They can't even get Iran to stop making nukes let alone deal with Islamic terrorism...

 

So in order of priority, you clean up the state sponsors first and deal with any individuals that may remain later.

 

A complete unwillingness to discuss what isn't going right with this war for fear that it might possibly reflect, even the tiniest bit, negatively on Bush is not, imho, in the best interests of America.

I am not denying a single fact that has been presented. Clearly we haven't won this war yet and it is an ugly one. I'm just not staying quiet while I watch people play chicken little on this issue.