A twist to the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confession?

Doesn't him confessing for each and every terror attack attributed to Islamic terrorists invalidate "the global war on terror" and prove that the Brittish are correct by opting to put their forces in Afghanistan to fight the al-Quada powerbase at their base of operations?

Also, eventhough every major media outlet is jumping on this, they barely mentioning that these "confessions" come from people stuck in Gitmo that have been waterboarded and psychologicaly tortured for over 4 years, which makes the confessions have about as much credence as Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman".

I'm actualy pissed as hell about the news here taking that same idiotic approach on the story, especialy considering they have done some incredible pieces on the CIA secret prisons and the situation at Gitmo in the past.

Originally posted by thematrix
Doesn't him confessing for each and every terror attack attributed to Islamic terrorists invalidate "the global war on terror"

Please elaborate on your thought process on that.

He doesn't claim EVERY terror attack, you don't see him claiming Hezbollah sponsered attacks and kidnappings do you? Or Syrian backed killings of political figures do you? Or Palestinian homicide bombers do you? Or the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra do you? Not that he wouldn't done any of those if given a chance.

How does a man who was high up in the command of AQ and managed terorrist plots around the WORLD for AQ invalidate the "global war on terror"? He provides a glimpse into how AQ operates and does business. Just because he is captured didn't mean AQ just said "darn, you got our one and only mastermind, we will never find a replacement" do you? I don't see AQ changing their tactics really, they still use terror as their primary way of making an impact.

KSM has been replaced by AQ, probably by someone not as sophisticated, but still quite capable of killing many innocent people.

The examples you use are mainly regional and neighboring country attacks with rather direct reasons.

I agree this man is way too convenient, much like the major, symbolic attacks he is responsible for. Not tactical strikes or prolonged warfare type stuff, just the big, piss-off-USA missions, for which he duly confesses, leaves piles of evidence, as if making the case for a nation of idiotic sheep who can't see or fathom the slightest subtlety. They don't seem real to me, but like cartoons of themselves and uber-convenient, curiously self-destructing patsies, and perfect material for an Orellian two-minutes hate session.

As far as catching the bad guys behind 9/11 and calling off the WOT, yes and no... it seems we have the main perp with KSM, case closed. Bali, '93, etc. He's like the ONLY one at that level it seems, and with him gone we might be safe enugh to call of the WOT - until some other convenient elusive mastermind rises, which has probably already happened.

But then again, I've got emotional "blockage" with 9/11, so who care what I say?

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by thematrix
The examples you use are mainly regional and neighboring country attacks with rather direct reasons.

Are those not terrorist attacks by Islamic groups? That's what you said not me.

Anyhow, how does this latest confession invalidate the global war on terror? There have still been attacks both executed and foiled since KSM has been captured. There will be more in the future. Since AQ is primarly based in the Middle East and they try to carry out attacks far from that region, why is it not proper to describe it as a global war on terror.