The War on Terror [Archive]

Don Corleone

07-07-2005, 15:54

Navaros is posting claims in a different thread that the UK is getting it's just desserts. Now, as I found it entirely inappropriate to engage him there, I figured I'd start another thread to answer him.

Here was his post:

i do not mean to come across as being uncompassionate. it sucks if innocent people die

but look at this thread. 4 pages already

because most of you are shocked. and spooked. exactly how Al Qaida wants you to feel. you are doing them a service by being freaked-out over this. the hysteria on these boards and everywhere else too, makes them feel overjoyed. if you hate them so much, why would you want them to feel that way?

starting a war - as Bush and Blair did - and then expecting that "your side" will not have any major casualities, is unrealistic. everyone knew the type of tactics that Al Qaida uses. by provoking them, it was bound to encourage more of such tactics.

Navaros, if you really believe the Terror War started in October, 2001 , you're crazier than I thought you were.

Let's do a quick running tally:

1993: Al Queda bombs the WTC. They fail to knock it down, causing a loss of face.

1996: Al Queda blows up the Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia. The local authorities, afraid of a backlash, refuse to cooperate in the investegation.

1998: Al Queda blows up the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Clinton responds months later by launching cruise missles at an abandoned training facility in Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in Sudan.

2000: AlQueda blows up the USS Cole. Again, nothign is done.

Sep 2001: Al Queda blows up the WTC (this time, succesfully) and the Pentagon.

Oct 2001: US & UK begin operation to drive Taliban & Al Queda out of Afghanistan and return majority rule.

And from all of that, you get that we started all of this and we're getting what we deserve? If you truly hate the West and Western people 1/10 as much your screeds would imply, why the %!$ are you here!? Act like you got a pair and go move to one of these fundamentalist paradises. Tell them about how all who don't follow Christ's teachings deserve death, and let's just see how long your sorry ass lasts. Cause honestly, speaking as a Christian, we don't need your kind. It's your lot that drives the unbelievers away, because they fear Christ and his followers due to your insane ranting.

JAG

07-07-2005, 16:00

Don Corleone

07-07-2005, 16:01

Bullshit. We hadn't done anything on September 10th. Their message is simple. Submit or die.

Templar Knight

07-07-2005, 16:01

But how to we get rid of them? Intellegence will only prevent such attacks, we need to pull them out by the roots.

JAG

07-07-2005, 16:04

PanzerJaeger

07-07-2005, 16:05

I cant wait to hear how these recent bombings and the ones in Madrid and New York are everyone's fault but the bombers.

Im sure Bush and America will top of the list, but dont be surprised to see Blair and Britain, Italy, Denmark, the "Western World", Israel, the Jews in general, the evil corporations, neocons, and possibly even SUV drivers in the mix.

It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction in some circles to ask "What have we done to cause these people to bomb us?" Thats not the right mentality. Rational discussion, negotiation, appeasement, and the like will not work in this case.

PanzerJaeger

07-07-2005, 16:08

Rubbish - need I remind you that the US funded and helped set up AQ?

How does helping them get rid of a soviet occupation give them justification to attack us? That logic doesnt add up. America didnt do anything but help them in a righteous cause.. there is clear moral superiority in this case.

Franconicus

07-07-2005, 16:10

I think Nav does have a point. It is our actions after 9/11 and way before then which has helped create more problems and strengthened AQ, their standing in the Middle East and their effective strength.

We need to seriously look at how we confront these organisations, everyone agrees they need to be rid of, but surely the way we are acting is NOT working, as shown today and as shown in Iraq.
There is no justification for this terror act. Assuming that AQ is resonsible: Then the question is not if we did something wrong before 9/11 or did something wrong after 9/11. The question is what we are going to do now and how we can prevent any mistakes now.
It seems to be obvious that we have to increase the efforts and maybe change the strategy. After all I hope the free world will come closer again.
But now is not the time to discuss this, not even in a seperate threat. The deads are retrieved and we should rest in mourning. I suggest to discuss the political points of view tomorrow. AQ will still be there.

Don Corleone

07-07-2005, 16:10

Rubbish - need I remind you that the US funded and helped set up AQ? It is simply naive to believe we have not helped cause the hate and filth the terrorist organisations spout out. Some of our actions in the west have helped cause the problems both before the first terrorist attacks and after.

We get rid of these groups by specific targeted attacks, using intelligence better and getting rid of the base support the terrorists thrive on and live off.

I get so tired of these arguments. The US gave weapons to rebel groups in Afghanistan to help take on an invading Soviet force. Yes. Shoot us.

The reason Al Queda hates the US and the UK is because we humiliated Hussein in the first Gulf War. AND... perish the thought, Westerners were allowed into the Saudi Kingdom. It doesn't matter that we were there to protect the Kingdom from Hussein invading, or that we freed another group of Arabs that were enslaved by Hussein.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Al Queda views you as a slave. No more. All the reasoning and talking and hand wringing will only encourage them.

JAG

07-07-2005, 16:10

JAG

07-07-2005, 16:14

Don - these knee jerk reactions is exactly what AQ wants and exactly what causes the problems to escilate.

We have helped cause the problem, we have helped make the problem worse, our tactics we use at the moment CLEARLY do NOT work. Tell those killed today that our tactics of crash and burn and invasion work. We need a rational discussion about all the issues and new tactics of specific targeted attack not invasion of whole bloody countries and inflaming the situation.

No one denies that AQ is a horrible organisation - I agree with you - but we cannot simply think more of the same by us will solve the situation it will not.

Don Corleone

07-07-2005, 16:14

I mean, they let a bomb off in Mecca, THEIR HOLY CITY!!! because white muslims, Bosnians, were allowed to make the Hajj!!! Do you really think with a mindset like that, you're going to be able to apologize, agree that the West is responsible, and then they'll stop?

Criminy Jag, you're not stupid. I'm not saying that even a majority of the Islamic world feels this way. But Al Queda sure as shit does. An Islamic world, with them at the top and all other races enslaved to them. Nothing else will satisfy them.

CBR

07-07-2005, 16:15

It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction in some circles to ask "What have we done to cause these people to bomb us?" Thats not the right mentality. Rational discussion, negotiation, appeasement, and the like will not work in this case.

Since this is a Total War site I find this quote fitting as an answer:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Sun-Tzu

I really do prefer rational discussion before letting the bombs fly...

CBR

Ser Clegane

07-07-2005, 16:18

But now is not the time to discuss this, not even in a seperate threat. The deads are retrieved and we should rest in mourning. I suggest to discuss the political points of view tomorrow. AQ will still be there.

Quite right - but I guess past experience has unfortunately shown that this wishful thinking :no:

I guess we will have to settle for at least keeping this kind of discussion out of one thread (and I really appreciate that most people at least try to keep Tmeplar's thread "clean").

@all
If you really cannot help starting this discussion already at this point - I at least excpect you to discuss in a civilised way. If this is not possible (and due to the situation my hopes are not too high) - this thread will be closed.

PanzerJaeger

07-07-2005, 16:19

BDC

07-07-2005, 16:22

Sigh - and expect people like PJ to be stating repeatedly 'kill them all!!!!! Invade all the Middle East!!!!! Israel bomb them!!!!!!!!'

Sigh.

That has proven to not work and help anyone, we need rational disussions about the situation not simply pointing fingers at the 'enemy' and trying to 'destroy' them.

We are not blameless, of course there is huge responsibility for the attacks, with AQ itself, no one is denying that - no one denied it with 9/11 and Madrid - however we need to take on board some of our faults as well. By not taking into account the problems we have caused we fuel the situation further.
I don't think we should invade or bomb people.

We blackmail the governments who shelter and support these people into giving them up or we make sure life gets very uncomfortable for these governments.

After all, it's not the people doing this. It's their leadership and a vicious minority.

zelda12

07-07-2005, 16:23

JAG

07-07-2005, 16:23

PJ - this is where you misread or actively misquite on purpose all those who do not simply think AQ is the sole cause to the problems. We do not avoid the fact that AQ are hugely responsible for the attacks, clearly they are as they committed them! But we simply state that AQ is not the only cause, we need to look at ourselves as well.

That included the US looking at past and present actions. You seemingly will not and I think you should take heed of CBR's reply.

Ja'chyra

07-07-2005, 16:23

First of all

Navaros is posting claims in a different thread that the UK is getting it's just desserts

No he bloody didn't, he said:

starting a war - as Bush and Blair did - and then expecting that "your side" will not have any major casualities, is unrealistic. everyone knew the type of tactics that Al Qaida uses. by provoking them, it was bound to encourage more of such tactics.

Which says that if you go to war with someone you must know that they are going to fight back, totally different. So if you're going to twist someone words try and do a better job of it.

As for who started the war, while it sure as hell didn't start on september 11th, it doesn't matter anymore, the whole "He started it" argument is for the schoolyard not the international community. That being said if you think it all started becauase someone woke up and decided to bomb the WTC you're being just a bit naive.

America didnt do anything but help them in a righteous cause.. there is clear moral superiority in this case.

Yeah? Tell it to the dead, sorry, that might be a bit harsh but not much.

This whole thread is disgusting, couldn't this at least wait til tomorrow?

JAG

07-07-2005, 16:26

I don't think we should invade or bomb people.

We blackmail the governments who shelter and support these people into giving them up or we make sure life gets very uncomfortable for these governments.

After all, it's not the people doing this. It's their leadership and a vicious minority.

I agree that approach would be far better than the current one. The current approach is 'do as we say or we will invade you'. That isn't how you solve a situation. You put pressure on the heads of governments in the critical countries, use diplomacy, even use targeted attacks if very neccesary.

We do not need to give the terrorist organisations more ammo for recruitement by acting heavy handedly like we have thus far.

PanzerJaeger

07-07-2005, 16:30

I really do prefer rational discussion before letting the bombs fly...

I was not suggesting we do not get information on AQ.

I was refering to the, as its called here, "Blaim America First Crowd". I suppose in Europe, "America" could be replaced with "West".

There is this idea that this is all America's fault. (See: Ward Churchill) Some people seem to think that we should try and end arab poverty and all the other injustices in the world, and that will clear America's tarnished image.

I am saying that America, or the Western World, are not guilty of anything but trying to protect muslims (bosnia, kuwait, saudi arabia).

People need to understand, as Don was saying, there is no level of appeasement that will work here except complete subserviance to whatever the terrorists demand. Trying to have a rational discussion about the demands of irrational people is difficult, and not the answer to terrorism.

JAG

07-07-2005, 16:34

Trying to have a rational discussion about the demands of irrational people is difficult, and not the answer to terrorism.

That is exactly the kind of thought pattern, as well as your 'Europe hates America and is blaming us!!!!' approach, which leads to the situation getting worse and more attacks like this happening.

The stupidity of your views in the wake of a third major terrorist attack is dumbfounding, I cannot rationale it, simply amazing.

Don Corleone

07-07-2005, 16:35

First of all

No he bloody didn't, he said:

Which says that if you go to war with someone you must know that they are going to fight back, totally different. So if you're going to twist someone words try and do a better job of it.

As for who started the war, while it sure as hell didn't start on september 11th, it doesn't matter anymore, the whole "He started it" argument is for the schoolyard not the international community. That being said if you think it all started becauase someone woke up and decided to bomb the WTC you're being just a bit naive.

I didn't actually post Navaros' first post in that thread, which probably shed a little more light on why I felt a need to respond:

Bush and Blair wanted to pick a fight with Al Qaida it should come as no surprise that Al Qaida will on occasion fight back

We didn't pick a fight with them, quite the opposite, and blowing up a bunch of civilians on a train isn't fighting back. I don't know your views on the matter, but a self-proclaimed Christian like Navaros should know better than to say things like that, especially in the thread dedicated to people offering their condolences.

Of course I don't think it all started because somebody woke up and bombed the WTC. Look, if you want to rely onthe kindness and mercy of Al Queda, be my guest. But I am not going to sit back and let people claim that attacks like what happened in London this morning are a simple matter of a group defending itself. Navaros did, and I answered him. I've said all I have to say on the matter.

PanzerJaeger

07-07-2005, 16:38

The stupidity of your views in the wake of a third major terrorist attack is dumbfounding, I cannot rationale it, simply amazing.And

And your We're the bad guys!!!!! mentality is equally idiotic. Your country got attacked today and youre still trying figure out the best way to appease the terrorists..

There is understanding your enemy and then there is sympathizing with him. :no:

Gawain of Orkeny

07-07-2005, 16:40

That is exactly the kind of thought pattern, as well as your 'Europe hates America and is blaming us!!!!' approach, which leads to the situation getting worse and more attacks like this happening.

As Ive said many times Jag you have it backwards. Its your kind of thought patterns that leads to the situation getting worse and more attacks like this happening.

The stupidity of your views in the wake of a third major terrorist attack is dumbfounding, I cannot rationale it, simply amazing.

Now this looks like a personal attack to me. I could say the same of your views. But I wouldnt call yours stupid , just misguided. Calling someones views stupid is calling the person stupid. You cant seperate ones views from their brain process.

JAG

07-07-2005, 16:41

Who the hell said I was sympathising with them? My family members could quite easily have been killed today, of course I am not sympathising with them, I am trying to understand the causes for the attacks which do involve us in the west - the west as in the US AND Europe. You seemingly want to think we are blameless and it is the 'evil arabs' wanting to kill us all which is the sole reason, that is idiotic, but you're too far gone to understand that.

JAG

07-07-2005, 16:43

As Ive said many times Jag you have it backwards. Its your kind of thought patterns that leads to the situation getting worse and more attacks like this happening.

Ah because the appoach thus far really has worked. How many is it dead since 9/11 due to our ineffectual responses? Great work!! Keep the killing coming!

Gawain of Orkeny

07-07-2005, 16:45

Ah because the appoach thus far really has worked. How many is it dead since 9/11 due to our ineffectual responses? Great work!! Keep the killing coming!

You seem to miss one fact. WERE AT WAR PEOPLE DIE. If we did as you suggest theres a good chance even more people would be dead. You cant reason with these people. Jag you would be one of those guys in war of the worlds who goes to make peace with the aliens and is turned to dust.

PanzerJaeger

07-07-2005, 16:46

What did we do to them Jag to justify this? No, in fact, just tell me what we did to them to cause them to feel their attacks are justified.

Sjakihata

07-07-2005, 16:47

I agree with JAG - that we seriously need to analyse our methology in dealing with these matters.

Questions need to be answered - the truth often holds more than one face.

Why do they attack the western world, especially the USA?

You say they started the fight, well, why did they start it?

I do not believe, opposite to PJ, that the world black and white - I believe in RBG.

For example, as Bush declared after the 9/11 attack, he said that we ( the western world) should launch a crusade against taliban. That is not smart wording, because, a crusade is a very sensitive thing to say, and a great tool for the terrorists.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-07-2005, 16:49

Why do they attack the western world, especially the USA?

Its pretty simple were not extremist Muslims. They even attack Muslims who arent fanatical enough. Wake the F up.

Sjakihata

07-07-2005, 16:51

Its pretty simple were not extremist Muslims.

that is both a vague and unsupported answer.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-07-2005, 16:53

that is both a vague and unsupported answer.

Its totaly clear and the evidenceis right in front of your eyes should you choose to look.

The big difference between Bin Laden and Bush is when Bin Laden says your either with us or against us hes deadly serious.

Redleg

07-07-2005, 16:56

PanzerJaeger

07-07-2005, 16:58

The real question is:

If in fact there are very clear objectives that AQ has, for example the US leaving Saudi Arabia, what will that do? How will that help us fight them? Do we intend to change our way of life and our foreign policy to appease them?

CBR

07-07-2005, 16:59

Well I prefer to fight AQ without making things easier for them in the meantime. I doubt AQ has less recruits since the Invasion of Iraq.

Before 9/11 it was much more abstract ideological struggle but we just keep on giving Muslims more reasons to get pissed off. AQ got mostly Saudis to do the 9/11 attacks because of US troops there. Now Iraq is like a beacon that attracts even more attention.

It will be more difficult for our intelligence services to control local groups as the extremism is spreading beyond the few known radicals.

CBR

Gawain of Orkeny

07-07-2005, 17:02

AQ got mostly Saudis to do the 9/11 attacks because of US troops there.

They used mostly Saudis because they wanted to drive a wedge between the US and Suadi Arabia. They certainly have seemed to accomplish that at least as far as US public opinon goes.

Don Corleone

07-07-2005, 17:05

We gave them a free pass in 1993. We gave them a free pass in 1996. We gave them a free pass in 1998. We gave them a free pass in 2000. Clearly, shaking your fist and saying "This will not stand" and doing nothing did nothing but embolden them.

We've tried reasoning with them. We've tried bribing them. We've tried apologizing to them. What did they do? They turned up the heat. I have no issue with Islam or muslims, this isn't about that. This is Wahabism, and whether or not unbelievers (of Wahabism) have a right to exist.

IliaDN

07-07-2005, 17:06

Its pretty simple were not extremist Muslims. They even attack Muslims who arent fanatical enough. Wake the F up.
You forget about Russia Chchen's rebels ( as far as I know ) are sponsored by Al Queda ...
Edit : it was an answer to the quetion why do they attack western world ( wrong quote ) ...

Sasaki Kojiro

07-07-2005, 17:07

We get rid of these groups by specific targeted attacks, using intelligence better and getting rid of the base support the terrorists thrive on and live off.

Specific target: Iraq

To get rid of base support we spread democracy and economic prosperity in the Middle East.

Your view of Iraq is too short term.

CBR

07-07-2005, 17:11

They used mostly Saudis because they wanted to drive a wedge between the US and Suadi Arabia. They certainly have seemed to accomplish that at least as far as US public opinon goes.

And also a country where Wahhabism is very strong, so easy to get people who were willing to die for a rather abstract cause. The AQ propaganda machine has had an easy job the last two years because of Iraq.

CBR

Steppe Merc

07-07-2005, 17:18

Kill, Osama Bin Laden. Its that simple, infiltrate AQ and kill every single major leader. Trace their accounts and cut of their money, find the government officials that support them in countries and have them assasinated using untraceable methods. Destroy the support and leadership mechanisms of the organisation.

Then pour money into the ME and rebuild that areas economy, rich and content men do not want Jihads. Poor unemployed disaffected men with no hope do.
Agreed. While I think that this problem cannot get better until the Middle Eastern people have fair and just lives, we can't just ignore Al Quedia, or try and talk with them. It's one thing to negiotate with Iraq loyalisty fighters, it's another to try and negiotate people who have no goals other than to destroy everyone that isn't Muslim enough.
I agree when it's said that the West has a hand in the cause and that until the Middle Eastern people's lives improve, nothing is going to change, but we can't improve their lives and earn their respect when insane orginizations that have no real motive exist. The fact that we may have had helped cause it doesn't mean that the radical Islamic terrorist would never allow peace.

Don Corleone

07-07-2005, 17:19

Steppe Merc

07-07-2005, 17:25

I always assumed that the leaders were the rich ones who wanted more power, while the grunts (at least now) were the poorer desprate people willing to blow themselves up.
But then again, as the Crusades showed, religous fervor is hardly limited to the poor.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-07-2005, 17:58

I always assumed that the leaders were the rich ones who wanted more power, while the grunts (at least now) were the poorer desprate people willing to blow themselves up.

There you go assuming again

Here read about the 911 hijackers. They werent poor desperate people as you assume.

LINK (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042801315.html)

scooter_the_shooter

07-07-2005, 18:06

Islam might be the problem

I was reading excerpts from the koran once and there was a passage that said

"And Allah said kill all of the infidels." Now this was an english translation so I have no clue how accurate that is but if it is what it really says we have a bigger problem.

Don Corleone

07-07-2005, 18:11

Islam is not the problem. The Wahabist sect of it is.

Steppe Merc

07-07-2005, 18:14

Thank you Don. :bow:

Gawain, surely numerous poor and desprerate people are also joining the terrorist groups?

Don Corleone

07-07-2005, 18:16

I'm sure they are, but they're not joining because they're poor. They're joining to put the world under Sharia. Rich, poor, young, old, there's only two things that unite these people 1) They're Wahabbist and 2) They want the rest of the world to be.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-07-2005, 18:22

Well at least Don gets it.

June 30, 2003, 11:20 a.m.
Wahhabism & Islam in the U.S.
Two-faced policy fosters danger.

By Stephen Schwartz

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the text of testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security on Thursday, June 26, 2003.

hairman Kyl, other distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for your invitation to appear here today.

I come before this body to describe how adherents of Wahhabism, the most extreme, separatist, and violent form of Islam, and the official sect in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, have come to dominate Islam in the U.S.

Islam is a fairly new participant at the "big table" of American religions. The Muslim community only became a significant element in our country's life in the 1980s. Most "born Muslims," as opposed to those who "converted" — a term Muslims avoid, preferring "new Muslims" — had historically been immigrants from Pakistan and India who followed traditional, peaceful, mainstream Islam.

With the growth of the Islamic community in America, there was no "Islamic establishment" in the U.S. — in contrast with Britain, France, and Germany, the main Western countries with significant Islamic minorities. Historically, traditional scholars have been a buffer against extremism in Islam, and for various sociological and demographic reasons, American Islam lacked a stratum of such scholars. The Wahhabi ideological structure in Saudi Arabia perceived this as an opportunity to fill a gap — to gain dominance over an Islamic community in the West with immense potential for political and social influence.

But the goals of this operation, which was largely successful, were multiple.

First, to control a significant group of Muslim believers.

Second, to use the Muslim community in the U.S. to pressure U.S. government and media, in the formulation of policy and in perceptions about Islam. This has included liaison meetings, "sensitivity" sessions and other public activities with high-level administration officials, including the FBI director, that we have seen since September 11.

Third, to advance the overall Wahhabi agenda of "jihad against the world" — an extremist campaign to impose the Wahhabi dispensation on the global Islamic community, as well as to confront the other religions. This effort has included the establishment in the U.S. of a base for funding, recruitment, and strategic/tactical support of terror operations in the U.S. and abroad.

Wahhabi-Saudi policy has always been two-faced: that is, at the same time as the Wahhabis preach hostility and violence against non-Wahhabi Muslims, they maintain a policy of alliance with Western military powers — first Britain, then the U.S. and France — to assure their control over the Arabian Peninsula.

At the present time, Shia and other non-Wahhabi Muslim community leaders estimate that 80 percent of American mosques are under Wahhabi control. This does not mean 80 percent of American Muslims support Wahhabism, although the main Wahhabi ideological agency in America, the so-called Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has claimed that some 70 percent of American Muslims want Wahhabi teaching in their mosques.1This is a claim we consider unfounded.

Rather, Wahhabi control over mosques means control of property, buildings, appointment of imams, training of imams, content of preaching — including faxing of Friday sermons from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia — and of literature distributed in mosques and mosque bookstores, notices on bulletin boards, and organizational solicitation. Similar influence extends to prison and military chaplaincies, Islamic elementary and secondary schools (academies), college campus activity, endowment of academic chairs and programs in Middle East studies, and most notoriously, charities ostensibly helping Muslims abroad, many of which have been linked to or designated as sponsors of terrorism.

The main organizations that have carried out this campaign are the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which originated in the Muslim Students' Association of the U.S. and Canada (MSA), and CAIR. Support activities have been provided by the American Muslim Council (AMC), the American Muslim Alliance (AMA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences, its sister body the International Institute of Islamic Thought, and a number of related groups that I have called "the Wahhabi lobby." ISNA operates at least 324 mosques in the U.S. through the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). These groups operate as an interlocking directorate.

Both ISNA and CAIR, in particular, maintain open and close relations with the Saudi government — a unique situation, in that no other foreign government directly uses religion as a cover for its political activities in the U.S. For example, notwithstanding support by the American Jewish community for the state of Israel, the government of Israel does not intervene in synagogue life or the activities of rabbinical or related religious bodies in America.

According to saudiembassy.net, the official website of the Saudi government, CAIR received $250,000 from the Jeddah-based Islamic Development Bank, an official Saudi financial institution, in 1999, for the purchase of land in Washington, D.C., to construct a headquarters facility.2

In a particularly disturbing case, the Islamic Development Bank also granted US$295,000 to the Masjid Bilal Islamic Center, for the construction of the Bilal Islamic Primary and Secondary School in California, in 1999.3 Hassan Akbar, an American Muslim presently charged with a fatal attack on his fellow soldiers in Kuwait during the Iraq intervention, was affiliated with this institution.

In addition, the previously mentioned official website of the Saudi government reported a donation in 1995 of $4 million for the construction of a mosque complex in Los Angeles, named for Ibn Taymiyyah, a historic Islamic figure considered the forerunner of Wahhabism.4 (It should be noted that Ibn Taymiyyah is viewed as a marginal, extremist, ideological personality by many traditional Muslims. In the wake of the Riyadh bombings of 2003, the figure of Ibn Taymiyyah symbolized, in Saudi public discourse, the inner rot of the regime. An article in the reformist daily al-Watan was headlined, "Who is More Important? The Nation or Ibn Taymiyyah"? Soon after it appeared, Jamal Khashoggi, editor of al-Watan and former deputy editor of Arab News, was dismissed from his post.)

The same official Saudi website reported a donation of $6 million, also in 1995, for a mosque in Cincinnati, Ohio.5 The website further stated, in 2000, "In the United States, the Kingdom has contributed to the establishment of the Islamic Center in Washington DC; the Omer Bin Al-Khattab Mosque in western Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Islamic Center, and the Fresno Mosque in California; the Islamic Center in Denver, Colorado; the Islamic center in Harrison, New York City; and the Islamic Center in Northern Virginia."6

How much money, in total, is involved in this effort? If we accept a low figure of control, i.e. NAIT ownership of 27 percent of 1,200 mosques, stated by CAIR and cited by Mary Jacoby and Graham Brink in the St. Petersburg Times,7 we have some 324 mosques.

If we assume a relatively low average of expenditures, e.g. $.5 million per mosque, we arrive at $162 million.

But given that Saudi official sources show $6 million in Cincinnati and $4 million in Los Angeles, we should probably raise the average to $1 million per mosque, resulting in $324 million as a minimum.

Our view is that the number of mosques under Wahhabi control actually totals at least 600 out of the official total of 1,200, while, as noted, Shia community leaders endorse the figure of 80 percent Wahhabi control. But we also offer a number of 4-6,000 mosques overall, including small and diverse congregations of many kinds.

A radical critic of Wahhabism stated some years ago that $25m had been spent on Islamic Centers in the U.S. by the Saudi authorities. This now seems a low figure. Another anti-extremist Islamic figure has estimated Saudi expenses in the U.S., over 30 years, and including schools and free books as well as mosques, near a billion dollars.

It should also be noted that Wahhabi mosques in the U.S. work in close coordination with the Muslim World League (MWL) and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), Saudi state entities identified as participants in the funding of al Qaeda.

Wahhabi ideological control within Saudi Arabia is based on the historic compact of intermarriage between the family of the sect's originator, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and the family of the founding ruler, Ibn Saud. To this day, these families divide governance of the kingdom, with the descendants of Ibn al-Wahhab, known as ahl al-Shaykh, responsible for religious life, and the Saudi royal family, or ahl al-Saud, running the state. The two families also continue to marry their descendants to one another. The supreme religious leader of Saudi Arabia is a member of the family of Ibn al-Wahhab. The state appoints a minister of religious affairs who controls such bodies as MWL and WAMY, and upon leaving his ministerial post he becomes head of MWL.

The official Saudi-embassy website reported exactly one year ago, on June 26, 2002, "The delegation of the Muslim World League (MWL) that is on a world tour promoting goodwill arrived in New York yesterday, and visited the Islamic Center there." The same website later reported, on July 8, 2002, "During a visit on Friday evening to the headquarters of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) [Secretary-General of the MWL Dr. Abdullah bin Abdulmohsin Al-Turki] advocated coordination among Muslim organizations in the United States. Expressing MWL's readiness to offer assistance in the promotion and coordination of Islamic works, he announced plans to set up a commission for this purpose. The MWL delegation also visited the Islamic Center in Washington DC and was briefed on its activities by its director Dr. Abdullah bin Mohammad Fowaj."8

In a related matter, on June 22, 2003, in a letter to the New York Post, James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, a civic lobbying organization, stated that his attendance at a press conference of WAMY in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, had been organized by the U.S. embassy in the kingdom. If this is true, it is extremely alarming. The U.S. embassy should not act as a supporter of WAMY, which, as documented by FDD and the Saudi Institute,9 teaches that Shia Muslims, including even the followers of Ayatollah Khomeini, are Jewish agents.

This is comparable to Nazi claims that Jewish business owners were Communists, or Slobodan Miloševic's charge, in the media of ex-Yugoslavia, that Tito was an agent of the Vatican. The aim is to derange people, to separate them from reality completely, in preparation for massacres. We fear that official Saudi anxiety their large and restive Shia minority, aggravated by Saudi resentment over the emergence of a protodemocratic regime in Iraq led by Shias, and consolidation of popular sovereignty in Shia Iran, may lead the Saudi regime to treat Shias as a convenient scapegoat, making them victims of a wholesale atrocity. The history of Wahhabism is filled with mass murder of Shia Muslims.

There is clearly a problem of Wahhabi/Saudi extremist influence in American Islam. The time is now to face the problem squarely and find ways to enable and support traditional, mainstream American Muslims in taking their community back from these extremists, while employing law enforcement to interdict the growth of Wahhabism and its financial support by the Saudis. If we fail to do this, Wahhabi extremism continues to endanger the whole world — Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Thank you for your attention.

LINK (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-schwartz063003.asp)

Steppe Merc

07-07-2005, 18:35

Thanks for the articale. It makes me wonder even more why the hell we are still friends with Saudi Arabia...

Don Corleone

07-07-2005, 18:40

Thanks for the articale. It makes me wonder even more why the hell we are still friends with Saudi Arabia...

No argument here. Of all the criticisms that I hear leveled against the US as partially responsible, this is the only I give any weight to. Thankfully, it's a mistake from which we're in the process of disentangling ourselves.

Ironside

07-07-2005, 18:53

Any ideas on how to pacify the Wahhabism? As it seems to be the soil from were the terroirists come from.

Don Corleone

07-07-2005, 18:57

Yeah, it's number one defender of the faith said exactly what will pacify them. Gawain posted it in another thread. Aside from that, there's very little, as that's all they want.

Slyspy

07-07-2005, 20:00

Thanks for the articale. It makes me wonder even more why the hell we are still friends with Saudi Arabia...

I think I know: give me an "o", give me an "i".............. you know the rest.

Ironside

07-07-2005, 20:25

Yeah, it's number one defender of the faith said exactly what will pacify them. Gawain posted it in another thread. Aside from that, there's very little, as that's all they want.

Well I did mean pacify as in threat netrulizer. To remove the reinforcement capacity of militant, fanatical, western hating, fundamentalistic Islamists usually help to keep the simular terrorist type down in numbers. At the same time you capture the terrorists.
Doing only one thing doesn't help enough.

Or do you leave the enemies armies or production centers intact when playing wargames? ~;) I admit I do the second, but only because those centers are "soon to be mine" ~D and I don't like rebuilding infrastructure.

Too be honest, would they actually win (Allah's younger brother helped ~D ), they would still fight eachother.

Big_John

07-07-2005, 20:38

i understand the point some are trying to make about proximate cause vs ultimate cause (and believe me, some people will never get their head around such a simple concept); terrorism must be treated like a disease. to eradicate the disease, one must deal with the ultimate cause, not just the symptoms.

unfortunately, trying to analyze and distinguish between proximate and ultimate causes when dealing with the interactions among complex sociopolitical entities is not easy. is it worth the effort?

some would say the causes need to be understood as well as possible if the symptoms are to be identified properly. and that it's important to do this because simply treating the symptoms of a disease is too expensive and ineffective in the long run.

i would tend to agree with that. i think, in the long run, less people will die and the so-called 'war on terror' will have been more effective if effort is put into delineating and addressing, as best as possible, the ultimate cause and proximate causes of this specific brand of terrorism we're dealing with at the moment. but, forethought has never been as potent a force as reflex.

Xiahou

07-07-2005, 20:40

They didn't have any problems finding volunteers prior to us doing anything in Afghanistan or Iraq.

And who said thow money at them, that people with money don't want Jihad? Bin Laden was a millionare when this all started and none of the hijackers on September 11th came from poor families. All were at least 'well to do'.
You know, its amusing (almost) when you hear the same people say that AQ is the USA's fault because we gave them money and then almost in the same breath they say we could solve everything by giving them more money. :dizzy2:

Don Corleone

07-07-2005, 21:03

Well I did mean pacify as in threat netrulizer. To remove the reinforcement capacity of militant, fanatical, western hating, fundamentalistic Islamists usually help to keep the simular terrorist type down in numbers. At the same time you capture the terrorists.
Doing only one thing doesn't help enough.

Or do you leave the enemies armies or production centers intact when playing wargames? ~;) I admit I do the second, but only because those centers are "soon to be mine" ~D and I don't like rebuilding infrastructure.

Too be honest, would they actually win (Allah's younger brother helped ~D ), they would still fight eachother.

Ironside, I think I understood what you meant, and I thought I answered you.

People don't turn to Wahabism because they're poor. There's plenty of middle and upper class extremists.

They don't turn to it because they're isolated. Many of these guys have families.

They don't turn to it because of the structure of your government. Members run the whole gamut between republic (as in Indonesia) to monarchy (Saudi Arabia) to military dictatorship (Syria).

I believe you're looking for sociological root cause, and this is my point... there isn't one. Any social vector you look at, you'll find representatives at either end of it.

In the end, the only thing that is common among these people is a desire to implement Sharia worldwide. This is the only thing they all have in common, their cause. You can argue that people are turning to Wahabism in response to perceived ills by the West, but let's face it, there's no direct correlation here. They've had recruits as long as they've had people. People claim it's a response to America's support of Israel, and while this might have exacerbated the situation, that's a tangential affect at best. I say this because this phenomenon LONG predates any concept of a nation of Israel and that's not the only area they're intersted in. How do you think the people in Bosnia wound up Muslim in the first place?

econ21

07-07-2005, 21:43

But, Don, I am not sure saying AQ are Islamic extremists gets us very far. It seems to imply they are just born like that - that this is just a continuation of the Islamic expansion that brought Muslims to Bosnia hundreds of years ago. In reality Islamic terrorism is a fairly recent phenomenon and one that appears to be growing. The causes of this is important question to answer - they may not be sociological, but they may give us a handle on how to prevent it gathering more recruits.

We can look at Bin Laden. He was not always waging war against the West. A very specific event sparked his antagonism - US troops in Arabia. We can look at the Chechen leader who was behind the Beslan school massacre - he was not always a fundamentalist fanatic, but changed while fighting a vicious war against Russia. We'll probably find similar "epiphanies" if we look at Algerian, Egyptian or Jordanian/Palestinian terrorists. Specific political or other situations that ignite a powder keg of frustrations and grievances. Knowing this does not necessarily mean we mustn't do anything to light the fire - using Western troops in Saudi Arabia to kick Saddam out of Kuwait was justified regardless of OBL's sensibilities, IMO. But keeping the bases after the war might have been a mistake, with the benefit of hindsight. Much of the opposition to the war in Iraq - at least within the West - has been that it may prove to have been the biggest such spark to Islamic terrorism in the future.

Then there are more fundamental explanations for Islamic terrorism - for why much of the Islamic world appears a powder keg. The Wahabi sect has been mentioned here. Its sponsorship by Saudi Arabia to divert potential opposition to the monarchy there must surely be a major factor. More generally, oppressive regimes - especially when combined with dismal economic performance - are likely to frustrate the ambitions of well educated young men who know they should be able to achieve more. Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan - maybe even parts of Indonesia - these places seem full of discontents. If it were not Wahabism or whatever you want to call it, in another age, it might have been nationalism or communism.

Even if we can identify the causes of Islamic terrorism, counteracting them may not be easy. Supporting political and economic reform in the affected areas would be a start. But I am not sure it is something best done at the barrel of a gun as the neocons think. Engaging in dialogue with and building bridges with non-extreme Muslims in these countries would be another. When the US starts sending politicians to speak on Al-Jazeera rather than firing missiles at its offices, then I'll start to have some confidence about how it's handling the war on terror.

Don Corleone

07-07-2005, 21:55

Simon,

You're right, that at some point, there was an event that provoked these guys' ire, and made them decide to go kill dozens of children at a school house, or whatever Bin Laden's got up his sleeve.

But let's take Bin Ladens' case for a second. The bug up his ass was that Western troops were allowed on Saudi soil during the first Gulf War. Yet.... had we done nothing, he would have been equally pissed off, claiming that the West cares nothing for the Arab world and allows the Husseins of the world to run rampant. It was a no-win situation for us. This makes me think it wasn't so much a cause, but an excuse. He needed something to hang his hat on, that seemed as good a reason as any.

Listen to what the man himself says. Listen to what the Chechens say. Listen to what the kooks in the Phillipines say. Nothing short of complete submission to Sharia across the globe will satisfy them. Regardless of what brought them to that place, there's no going back for them.

Papewaio

07-07-2005, 22:02

I agree that approach would be far better than the current one. The current approach is 'do as we say or we will invade you'. That isn't how you solve a situation. You put pressure on the heads of governments in the critical countries, use diplomacy, even use targeted attacks if very neccesary.

We do not need to give the terrorist organisations more ammo for recruitement by acting heavy handedly like we have thus far.

Jag I didn't know you agreed with Israeli policy of target attacjs instead of outright invasion...

If you put pressure on a government you have to be prepared to go all the way or it will be seen as a bluff and you lose the ability to get what you want. This is what happened with Saddam prior to Kuwait invasion, political pressure was used but it was not backed up. Saddam thought that it never would happen. If you talk, prepare to walk the talk.

econ21

07-07-2005, 22:29

Regardless of what brought them to that place, there's no going back for them.

No argument there. My concern is just to minimise the number of additional recruits they persuade to join them.

JAG

07-07-2005, 22:30

Maybe I should explain exactly what I mean by specific attacks.

I was never against taking action against the terrorist elements in Afghanistan. An attack to strike the terrorist, military training bases, such as those in Afghanistan, if proved by clear unequivocal evidence, I would not have a problem with striking them, with the support of the countries governments. If no support is forthcoming even via diplomatic pressure put upon them, then it becomes more tricky and it should be looked at case by case. But the point still stands, I would support specified attacks on terrorist bases such as there was in Afghanistan.

Those talking about Iraq - oh do shut up. Iraq had no terrorist bases, it did not support terrorists etc, every piece of evidence supports that, on top of that it is no proven that it was no threat. Attacking Iraq has worsened the situation. Not only because we have allowed Iraq to become terrorist haven - allowing further support and recruitment for the terrorist organisations, not to mention training - and we have taken our eye of the clear, real and patently obvious threat - AQ. Shameful.

Don Corleone

07-07-2005, 22:34

Okay, well, it's a question of which slogan the recruits sign on to, not whether or not you're going to give them one.

Because yes, you're right, right now "Help us stop the crusaders from enslaving us to their decadent ways".

But it wasn't so long ago it was "We've got the decadent West on the run. Help us spread the word of Allah and free the depraved from the bonds of slavery".

So now, either we continue to oppose them, and we get more of #1, or we do as some would have and start trying to negotiate with them, as though they're a political body and you get slogan #3
"As we always suspsected, the decadent West is populated by cowards and they've lost their will to fight. As we go forward, now is YOUR chance to help strike a blow for Islam".

You see my point? They remind me of that scene in Goldfinger, when Goldfinger is about to slice Bond in half with the laser:

Bond: You expect me to talk?
Goldfinger: *laughing* No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die.

Tribesman

07-07-2005, 23:04

But let's take Bin Ladens' case for a second. The bug up his ass was that Western troops were allowed on Saudi soil during the first Gulf War.
Don its before that , John Simpson (BBC War Correspondant) was reporting with the Mujahadeen during the Afghan War when he met Osama , he said Osama wanted to kill him because he was a westerner and he hated them , according to Simpson it was only the other fighters that prevented him from doing it .
So , while Osama uses the troop presence in Saudi as an excuse , it is only a convenient front for his hatred .

Papewaio

07-07-2005, 23:25

Oliver North stated that he was afraid of Osama bin Ladin quite a long time ago...

PanzerJaeger

07-07-2005, 23:34

Ollie, afraid!? You must be mistaken.. ~D

Papewaio

07-07-2005, 23:39

Another Urban Legend bites the dust, just snoped and found that Oliver North and Osama one is another false one.

FROM THE DESK OF LTCOL OLIVER L. NORTH (USMC) RET.
NOVEMBER 28, 2001
OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS, I HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL THOUSAND E-MAILS FROM EVERY STATE IN THE U.S. AND 13 FOREIGN COUNTRIES IN WHICH THE ORIGINATOR PURPORTS TO HAVE RECENTLY VIEWED A VIDEOTAPE OF MY SWORN TESTIMONY BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE IN 1987.

A COPY OF ONE OF THOSE E-MAILS IS ATTACHED BELOW. AS YOU WILL NOTE, THE ORIGINATOR ATTRIBUTES TO ME CERTAIN STATEMENTS REGARDING USAMA BIN LADEN AND OTHER MATTERS THAT ARE SIMPLY INACCURATE. THOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO CLAIM THE GIFT OF PROPHESY, I DON'T HAVE IT.

I DON'T KNOW WHO SAW WHAT VIDEO "AT UNC." (OR ANYWHERE ELSE) BUT, FOR THE RECORD, HERE'S WHAT I DO KNOW:

1. IT WAS THE COMMITTEE COUNSEL, JOHN NIELDS, NOT A SENATOR WHO WAS DOING THE QUESTIONING.

2. THE SECURITY SYSTEM, INSTALLED AT MY HOME, JUST BEFORE I MADE A VERY SECRET TRIP TO TEHRAN, COST, ACCORDING TO THE COMMITTEE, $16K, NOT $60K.

3. THE TERRORIST WHO THREATENED TO KILL ME IN 1986, JUST BEFORE THAT SECRET TRIP TO TEHRAN, WAS NOT USAMA BIN LADEN, IT WAS ABU NIDAL (WHO WORKS FOR THE LIBYANS — NOT THE TALIBAN AND NOT IN AFGHANISTAN).

4. I NEVER SAID I WAS AFRAID OF ANYBODY. I DID SAY THAT I WOULD BE GLAD TO MEET ABU NIDAL ON EQUAL TERMS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD BUT THAT I WAS UNWILLING TO HAVE HIM OR HIS OPERATIVES MEET MY WIFE AND CHILDREN ON HIS TERMS.

5. I DID SAY THAT THE TERRORISTS INTERCEPTED BY THE FBI ON THE WAY TO MY HOUSE IN FEB. 87 TO KILL MY WIFE, CHILDREN AND ME WERE LIBYANS, DISPATCHED FROM THE PEOPLE'S COMMITTEE FOR LIBYAN STUDENTS IN MCLEAN, VIRGINIA.

6. AND I DID SAY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD MOVED MY FAMILY OUT OF OUR HOME TO A MILITARY BASE (CAMP LEJEUNE, NC) UNTIL THEY COULD DISPATCH MORE THAN 30 AGENTS TO PROTECT MY FAMILY FROM THOSE TERRORISTS (BECAUSE A LIBERAL FEDERAL JUDGE HAD ALLOWED THE LYBIAN ASSASSINS TO POST BOND AND THEY FLED).

7. AND, FYI: THOSE FEDERAL AGENTS REMAINED AT OUR HOME UNTIL I RETIRED FROM THE MARINES AND WAS NO LONGER A "GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL." BY THEN, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAD SPENT MORE THAN $2M PROTECTING THE NORTH FAMILY. THE TERRORISTS SENT TO KILL US WERE NEVER RE-APPREHENDED.

SEMPER FIDELIS,
OLIVER L. NORTH

Steppe Merc

07-08-2005, 00:17

You see my point? They remind me of that scene in Goldfinger, when Goldfinger is about to slice Bond in half with the laser:

Bond: You expect me to talk?
Goldfinger: *laughing* No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die.
Good movie.

kiwitt

07-08-2005, 00:56

I doubt AQ has less recruits since the Invasion of Iraq.This raises some issues about how we fighting this war.

The Iraq War caused the number of "army" recruits in the "West" to drop, whereas the number of recruits against the "West" has increased.

The people driving this war on the Western side need to be "selling" the message that we can win this war. Instead the US is saying we may be in Iraq "campaign" component of this war is for an indefinite period. This maybe sending a signal that the war could go on for years; not a good rallying call.

Also, how we are fighting this war, needs to be addressed. Tightening the security is like building stronger walls to a castle. The enemy always gets stronger and more sophisticated and can find ways to breach these walls. What we actually need to do is "sally" out an army of infiltrators and stop them before they get to the walls. They did this in Afghanistan, but after the Iraq campaign, the enemy is in smaller pockets, which will require smaller "precise" infiltration.

BTW: Do not forget "Bali" was also a "terrorist" attack making this the 4th

Don Corleone

07-08-2005, 01:10

Nobody has forgotten or will forgot Bali. :bow:

Aurelian

07-08-2005, 05:17

Here's a bit about the motives behind today's attack that's worth reading. This is from Prof. Juan Cole's site "Informed Comment" (http://www.juancole.com/):

What was the aim of this particular terrorist attack?

"The Al Qaeda ideology believes that the Muslim world is weak and oppressed and dominated by the wealthy capitalist West. And that this West uses things like the establishment of Israel or the setting of Muslim against Muslim in Iraq or Afghanistan as a way of keeping the Muslim world weak. Ideally, all the Muslims should get together and establish a United States of Islam, which would revive the Caliphate. (In medieval Islam the Caliph was a kind of pope figure, a central spiritual authority.) Under the Caliphate, you’d have the wealthy Egyptian writers and engineers and you’d have the wealthy oil states come together to make the Muslim world into a united superpower.

Does that dream spring specifically from Salafi theology?

No, you could be a Salafi and not share that particular ideology.

So where does the idea come from?

It goes back to the 19th century. The Ottomans, when they were facing British and French incursion, put together this idea of pan-Islam back in the 1880s. They think that for the last 200 years or so, since Bonaparte invaded Egypt in 1798, Europe has been invading their countries, raping their women, subjecting their men, and stealing their wealth.

So they have a two-fold plan. In order to establish a united Muslim country, you’d have to overthrow the individual secular regimes that now exist—Algeria and Egypt, and so forth. Then you’d have to unite them all under Salafi Islam. And every time they’ve tried to overthrow the Egyptian government, they’re checked, in part because the Americans back [Egyptian President] Hosni Mubarak.

So then they put forward the theory in the 1990s of hitting the foreign enemy first. Basically there are two major impediments to their plan. One is the local secular military governments, which resist being dissolved into this Islamic state. The other is the Western superpowers that back the military regimes. So they became convinced that in order to go forward with their plans, they would have to find a way of pushing the United States and the other powers out of the Middle East—make them timid about intervening, make them pick up stakes and go home, leaving Mubarak and others to their fate. So the attack on London is part of this strategy—getting the British out of Iraq and Afghanistan, weakening British resolve for having a strong posture in the Middle East a la supporting the United States. Having gotten rid of Western dominance, they believe, they can then polish off the secular enemies and go forward with their plans for a revolution of the global south.

If the West pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan, would that end the terrorism or slow it down?

The people who already hold these ideas are unlikely to have their minds changed. They look around and see Western influence everywhere. Certainly the U.S. occupation of Iraq is a great recruiting tool for al Qaeda. They can go to the mosques and find unemployed angry young men and say they are oppressed by Westerners and say, “Look what they’re doing in Fallujah.” So the images are very good recruitment tools.

Why do they think terrorism will work, since it’s unlikely Britain will change its policies?

The British were already planning to draw down their troops from 9,000 to 2,000 in the next nine months. I think the British will do that, and these bombings will not change British policy. The British have been bombed before and have not been timid; they’ve soldiered on in their activities. I don’t think Spain withdrew from Iraq mainly because of the Madrid bombings, either. The Iraq war had always been enormously unpopular—-92 percent of the population didn’t want it.

But these people don’t do these bombings for immediate political purposes. Sacred terror has a lot to do with symbology. They’re like big theatrical events. As I said, they couldn’t even operate in Cairo; they would be arrested. So they feel very powerless. All the powers in the world are against them, and they feel very sure God is with them. What do you do if you’re a tiny fringe who is completely right and indeed only if your plan succeeds is the world saved? And you’re opposed by all of these massive states and powers? One of the things they’re doing is giving themselves heart. They’re saying we can make a difference, we can intervene in history, the enemy is not invulnerable, and we can strike it . . ."

Aurelian

07-08-2005, 05:52

Another tidbit from "Informed Comment":

I heard Michael Scheuer, the former CIA Bin Laden analyst, a couple of times this morning, once on NPR's Morning Edition and once on the Diane Rehm show. I thought his comments compelling....

Scheuer believes that al-Qaeda is an insurgent ideology focused on destroying the United States and its allies, because its members believe that the US is trying to destroy them. Al-Qaeda members see the Israeli occupation and oppression of the Palestinians, backed by the US; US support for military regimes like those of Pakistan and Egypt; and US military occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq as evidence of a US onslaught on Islam and Muslims aimed at reducing them to neo-colonial slavery. That is, specific Western policies are the focus of al-Qaeda response, not a generalized "hatred" of "values."

I think it's important to understand the set of grievances that make people in the Islamic world join al-Qaeda. If we seriously want to put an end to terrorism, we need to do two things: 1) Hunt down and destroy existing terrorist operations. 2) Do it in such a way that we don't generate more terrorism.

Currently, we don't seem to be doing either particularly well.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-08-2005, 06:54

I think it's important to understand the set of grievances that make people in the Islamic world join al-Qaeda.

~D ~D ~D This has become a joke. Yet when Rove accussed liberals of this he was attacked.

We know their grievances Were not radical Muslims. Do only Don and I and a few others get it? ~:confused:

Productivity

07-08-2005, 07:34

We know their grievances Were not radical Muslims. Do only Don and I and a few others get it? ~:confused:

No no no. That is the grievance of the radical muslim. It's insane, and can't be reasoned with.

The million dollar question is, why is the muslim group I play soccer with every tuesday fine, reasonable people, where as the muslim group who want to kill me are not. It's not just the standard x% of any group that are wackos. Somewhere, there is a reason which is causing a lot of muslims who in my experience are fine people, to be extremists.

If you can get to what turns muslims to wahhabism, then you can get close to solving the issue.

bmolsson

07-08-2005, 07:36

You didnt address your earlier comments.

Its common doublespeak in leftist cirlces that America is somehow at fault because it "funded AQ in Afghanistan against the soviets".

I want to know what line of reasoning justifies AQ attacking us because we helped them get rid of the soviets.

So if I understand this correct. It's ok to use terrorism against Soviet occupation, but it's not ok to use terrorism against any western occupation ??

I think that the point here is that it's not ok to EVER use terrorism and the problems today is because somebody didn't think so a few decades ago.......

Tribesman

07-08-2005, 11:46

It's ok to use terrorism against Soviet occupation, but it's not ok to use terrorism against any western occupation ??
Yes , that is correct .
It was written into the contract ....
"When you have stopped fighting against one "evil" empire that is interfering in other countries you will put away the guns and not fight any other "evil" empires that are interfering in other countries ."

Don Corleone

07-08-2005, 12:47

Another tidbit from "Informed Comment":

I think it's important to understand the set of grievances that make people in the Islamic world join al-Qaeda. If we seriously want to put an end to terrorism, we need to do two things: 1) Hunt down and destroy existing terrorist operations. 2) Do it in such a way that we don't generate more terrorism.

Currently, we don't seem to be doing either particularly well.

Isn't this the guy who was on watch for the Khobar towers, the embassy bombings and the Cole? Yeah, he sure knows how to keep them calm.

Ja'chyra

07-08-2005, 13:07

Here's a bit about the motives behind today's attack that's worth reading. This is from Prof. Juan Cole's site "Informed Comment" (http://www.juancole.com/):

As we don't know who carried out the bombings yet his opinion isn't really worth anything.

PanzerJaeger

07-08-2005, 14:54

So if I understand this correct. It's ok to use terrorism against Soviet occupation, but it's not ok to use terrorism against any western occupation ??

I think that the point here is that it's not ok to EVER use terrorism and the problems today is because somebody didn't think so a few decades ago.......

The fighting that was done against the soviets was not terrorism. They were at war with the soviet military. In fact, its become very questionable whether the US ever had anything to do with OSama.

In any event, the turn from afghani nationalism to international terrorism could not have been forseen. If anything, common sense would say that they would be thankful we helped them get rid of the russians.

Proletariat

07-08-2005, 17:20

Via Belmont Club:

OUCH:

http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/08/do0802.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/07/08/ixopinion.html

Of course, many resources had been redeployed to Scotland to cope with Bob Geldof's pathetic call for a million anti-globalist ninnies to descend on the G8 summit. In theory, the anti-glob mob should be furious with al-Qa'eda and its political tin ear for ensuring that their own pitiful narcissist protests - the pâpier-maché Bush and Blair puppets, the ethnic drumming, etc - will be crowded off the news bulletins.

and

Did we learn enough, for example, from the case of Omar Sheikh? He's the fellow convicted of the kidnapping and beheading in Karachi of the American journalist Daniel Pearl. He's usually described as "Pakistani" but he is, in fact, a citizen of the United Kingdom - born in Whipps Cross Hospital, educated at Nightingale Primary School in Wanstead, the Forest School in Snaresbrook and the London School of Economics. He travels on a British passport. Unlike yours truly, a humble Canadian subject of the Crown, Mr Sheikh gets to go through the express lane at Heathrow.

But the article can be summed up in one sentence:

Most of us can only speculate at the degree of Islamist penetration in the United Kingdom because we simply don't know, and multicultural pieties require that we keep ourselves in the dark.

And Chris Hitchens has some underreported news from the front for those who wish to pin the blame for these attacks on Iraq:

The first British citizens to be killed in Afghanistan were fighting for the Taliban,...

And then the same advice for Britian, and all of Europe, as well as the left wing in America

In many British cities, there are now demands for sexual segregation in schools and for separate sharia courts to try Muslim defendants. The electoral strength of Muslims is great enough to encourage pandering from all three parties: The most egregious pandering of all has come from Blair himself, who has promised legislation that would outlaw any speech that could be construed as offensive to Islam. Since most British Muslims are of Asian descent, a faint sense exists that criticism of their religion is somehow racist: In practice this weak-mindedness leads to the extension of an antiquated law on blasphemy that ought long ago to have been repealed but is now to cover the wounded feelings of Muslims as well as Christians.

Steppe Merc

07-08-2005, 19:04

Of course, many resources had been redeployed to Scotland to cope with Bob Geldof's pathetic call for a million anti-globalist ninnies to descend on the G8 summit.
Odd, I would think that Live8 would be pro globilisation, since they want people to help people from other countries... Or is that not globilisation?

Kagemusha

07-08-2005, 19:35

I ask one simple question here.Are Tzechenian fighters terrorists?

Ser Clegane

07-08-2005, 19:45

I ask one simple question here.Are Tzechenian fighters terrorists?

If they deliberately target civilians in a theater, hospitals or children in a school - yes.

Steppe Merc

07-08-2005, 19:50

I agree with Ser Clegane. If anyone attacks innocents on purpose, no matter how noble their poltical ideology may sound, they are terrorists.

Kagemusha

07-08-2005, 19:54

If they deliberately target civilians in a theater, hospitals or children in a school - yes.

I agree.But this is the thing that bugs me with "war on terrorism".Someone looks at a same person and thinks he or she is a terrorist and another one thinks the same person is freedom fighter.If US is so anxious to bring freedom to Iraq,why the Kurds didnt got their own independent state?While they helped US in the war,and they doesnt want be a part of Iraq.

Steppe Merc

07-08-2005, 20:00

I also wondered why Iraq wasn't split off into seperate states... I can't imagine it causing more instability than what's currently going on.

Taffy_is_a_Taff

07-08-2005, 20:05

Kagemusha: I guess the reason the Kurds are unlikely to get their own free state at the moment is basically the same reason that the Basques didn't get their own state at the end of Franco's reign. The powers that be wanted to avoid upsetting a much wider group of ethnicities and states.

I do not know if that is quite right but it sounds about there.

Free Basque country = angry Spaniards, angry French, jealous Bretons, jealous Scots, jealous Welsh, jealous northern Italians, angry English people (because so many of them take offence when non-English U.K. natives profess their unEnglishness), angry southern Italians for making the north all uppity. Or they could just disappoint the Basques.

You could probably make similar predictions about the repercussions of a mini Kurdish state being established.

PanzerJaeger

07-08-2005, 20:08

Landmass nations generally have better economies than small ones, therefore they are stronger and more able to take care of their people.

Look at the US. Big economies like California and New York help provide for small ones like Idaho and Oklahoma. And those states in turn offer resources to the big economies.

Kagemusha

07-08-2005, 20:08

I think that most of the wars in Middle East and Africa are fault of our European ancestors.Colonialism.Our ancestors didnt give a shit where they drew the borders there. :bow:

Steppe Merc

07-08-2005, 20:10

Mm, good point PJ. I know that during the Civil War, it was unbalanced since the North had a lot of factories while the South had most of the farms. Perhaps the industries wouldn't work that well if they were divided up into ethicnic states.

Taffy_is_a_Taff

07-08-2005, 20:11

same thing everywhere in the world, including Europe, the rulers of states never really care about the ethnicity of the subjects within their states. When some of those ethnicities decide that their culture would be better of in a state of its own or in the same state as their brethren acrooss a border then the rulers tend to get nasty.

Kagemusha

07-08-2005, 20:13

Taffy_is_a_Taff

07-08-2005, 20:15

I believe that small countries can do very well and are also very good at keeping small cultures thriving. However, a lot of bigger countries(U.K., France, Spain etc.) that contain many different smaller nations (as in ethnicity not nation state) do not like this one bit.

I'm a big fan of the smaller countries. I was just suggesting that a reason why the Kurds of Iraq are unlikely to get their own state at the moment is because of the amount of angry Turks, Syrians, Iraqis and Iranians that will kick up a stink about it.

Steppe Merc

07-08-2005, 20:24

I was mainly talking about any existing industries. I mean, perhaps the Kurds get all the good farmland while another place would get all the good industuries, thus making the split impractical. This is doubtful, as I know nothing about the industries in Iraq or were they're located, but it's an example.

Kagemusha

07-08-2005, 20:28

If my memory serves me correctly Scottish have self government.And the Irish already have their own country except Ulster(Northern Ireland).Why British have to have an foothold on Ireland?I think that Scottish too have their own country in future 50 years.About Basks.There you can see where terrorism grows. Only reason that ETA exists is that there is Bask people that nor Spain or France have not given freedom.If US is after liberty they should create national states in middle east.You have to have National state befofe you can join somekind of union. :bow:

Navaros

07-08-2005, 21:00

We didn't pick a fight with them, quite the opposite, and blowing up a bunch of civilians on a train isn't fighting back.

Of course I don't think it all started because somebody woke up and bombed the WTC. Look, if you want to rely onthe kindness and mercy of Al Queda, be my guest. But I am not going to sit back and let people claim that attacks like what happened in London this morning are a simple matter of a group defending itself. Navaros did, and I answered him. I've said all I have to say on the matter.

saying stuff like "bring it on" (as Bush said to Muslim insurgents) and always declaring any opposition to the USA as "evil"; and the USA proudly thumping it's chest any time it captures or kills insurgents...in my view, all that certainly qualifies as picking a fight

as for them blowing up civilians "not fighting back": maybe it is not to me and you . but to them, it is fighting back. my point was that everybody knew the types of things that Al Qaida does prior to the London attack. therefore, for everyone to panic and be in shock & hysteria when London gets attacked (as they did), is illogical and unreasonable. London chose to engage in a war. the other side hit London back. everyone knew it was coming sooner or later.

as for the suggestion i should go move away and fight with them: i am not Muslim, therefore i feel no compelling reason take up Jihad. and i don't necessarily approve of everything they do. i simply understand why they are angry and vehemently hateful of those nations that are trying to steal Islam from them.

most like to think of secularists as "good" and those who truly believe in Islam as "evil". i disagree with that assessment. we are not better than them, in my view.

Red Harvest

07-08-2005, 22:18

There is a lot of blurring of lines going on, but I think the simplest definition is:

Terrorism = irregulars attacking civilian targets simply to incite bloodshed and/or terror.

This gets hazy when there is an attack on a military target with "collateral damage" and civilians are killed who were not the targets.

The bomb attack on the USS Cole would qualify as more of a military strike (by irregulars) in my mind. (Hey, I don't agree with them, and as irregulars they would/should be subject to summary execution, but they did stick to a military target.) The Afghan war vs. the Soviets was a fairly standard rebellion against a coup. Terrorism was most certainly part of it, but the struggle itself was legitimate.

Chechnya is interesting. Russia was flat out wrong in launching the first war with Chechnya. The Russian army got its butt kicked. That wasn't terrorism by the Chechens. However, after gaining some autonomy, the Chechens began carrying out terrorist attacks on their neighbors. So the Russians went back in. What an absolute mess. When the Chechens target civilians, it is terrorism. When they target the military, it is rebellion. I had sympathy for them the Chechens the first time out, but I have none for them now.

Now I can get myself into trouble here...but attacks on true military targets in Iraq are not terrorism. They do have some flavor of terrorism because of the way they are conducted, and mainly because they are often done by men posing as civilians. As such they are in a reprehensible category of irregular warfare that at one time was subject to summary on the spot execution (and should be again.) The hostage taking, the attacks on civilians, assassinations, etc. are indeed terrorism.

So while I'm inclined to say let's hunt down and execute the insurgents targeting our forces, I'm not inclined to call them terrorists for attacks on our forces. When they attack civilians, they get the terrorist label. In many cases they are indistinguishable and attacking both, and are therefore simply terrorists.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-08-2005, 22:53

So while I'm inclined to say let's hunt down and execute the insurgents targeting our forces, I'm not inclined to call them terrorists for attacks on our forces. When they attack civilians, they get the terrorist label. In many cases they are indistinguishable and attacking both, and are therefore simply terrorists.

Well said i couldnt agree with you more. ~:cheers:

Brenus

07-08-2005, 23:09

“The reason Al Queda hates the US and the UK is because we humiliated Hussein in the first Gulf War”: Rubbish: Before the 1st Gulf War, Iraq was a secular state… Saddam killed the high ranking Imams… Al-Qa’ida is made mainly by Saudis.
The Taliban were trained and educated in the Madrasa in Pakistan, main allies of the US in the Region. Osama Bin Laden was happy to have his revenge on Saddam, doubly happy because it was done by an other enemy (they killed each other, less job to do), and couldn’t hind his joy for the beautiful new training centre where every frustrated and fanatic anti-US/Westerners will be able to kill… ~:cheers:

“How does helping them get rid of a soviet occupation give them justification to attack us”: Pz, never try to find logic in terrorism (what we call logic, especially the religious one. They kill you to save your soul, remember Torquemada and the Holly Inquisition?). But, unfortunately, the US chooses the wrong ally in helping the resistance against the Russians. The CIA agreed to eat with the Devil, and to equip him. All the good fables for children know how it finishes. :dizzy2:
Al-Qa’ida attacked the US despite the help against the Soviet, because for Osam (who, I repeat, isn’t Afghan and never fought against the Spetnatz himself but smuggled and sold weapons), the first degree of evil is atheism, the second degree is to be polytheists and the third to be Non-Muslim. The fault (or mistake) of the US was to underestimate Osama’s fanatism and to fail to see he will turn against them. As a Saudi (Wahhabit), no non-Muslim should be allowed on the Holly Land of Saudi Arabia, land of the Mecca. So, the American became a legitimate target…
“No, in fact, just tell me what we did to them to cause them to feel their attacks are justified”: Just the fact that we exist (we, me included, French) is enough for them. They are racists, intolerant. They are fanatic, sacrificing others lives and avoiding carefully going to martyrdom themselves… They are the Old Men in the Mountain… :devil:

“To get rid of base support we spread democracy and economic prosperity in the Middle East”: Well, unfortunately, it isn’t so easy. Robespierre, quiet famous in France said one day the People don’t like armed prophet… That was just before France started wars to spread revolution in Europe to get rid of tyranny and to free other countries without theirs agreement on the matters. It finished in 1814 and 1815 in Waterloo…
Osama Bin Laden was one of the richest men on Earth. In 1995, when bombs exploded in the subway in Paris and Lyon, the culprits were not from the poorest emigrates but were well educated and successful students and businessmen for emigration and newly converted… Development isn’t the only key, nor democracy…

“Rich, poor, young, old, there's only two things that unite these people 1) They're Wahabbist and 2) They want the rest of the world to be”. The Islamists in Indonesia aren’t… The Hezbollah in Lebanon isn’t. Nor is the Sudanese Government which imposed the Sharia upon the Christian and polytheist minorities…
That is where, in my opinion, we are mistaken. They aren’t Muslim, they are Nazi. They have an idea of the world based on superiority and inferiority. Their view date from the Old Ottoman Empire, where to be Muslim means to rule and the others just left with the possibility to live if they submit and pay the price for their life, but denied from every right.

The Iraq war didn’t create a recruitment field for Ben Laden. The occupation and all the events during the so-called interim-period did. Paul Bremer created a “state” where all the rules can’t be changed by the future elected government. No way will they be able to decide to be something else than a so-called liberal economy, they won’t be able to renegotiate the oil contract, etc…
I worked in the Kurdish area after Desert storm Operation and Provide comfort, and the Kurds succeeded (too well for the Turkish taste) in self government without any foreign troops on their soil, protected from Saddam retribution by the Denied fly Zone. So, yes, the Bremer administration was set-up just for the plunder of Iraq and the juicy repartition of contracts between the thieves… This politic was just a fertilizer spread on a good rich terrain. I admit it was a real concern that the Shiites could have overrun Iraq with the help of their Iranian cousins and brothers, reason why Saddam was allowed to save his Republican Guards during the 1st Gulf War and to crush the revolt in Basra.

“In fact, its become very questionable whether the US ever had anything to do with Osama”: No, it isn’t. The US used him to buy and smuggled weapons, as an intermediary. He belongs to one of the most powerful family of Saudi Arabia, strong US ally. ~D

“Are Chechen fighters terrorists?” Yes, they are, but also murderers, kidnapers. The fact they Russians are hardly better isn’t an excuse.

“I believe that small countries can do very well and are also very good at keeping small cultures thriving. However, a lot of bigger countries(U.K., France, Spain etc.) that contain many different smaller nations (as in ethnicity not nation state) do not like this one bit”: All these countries are Democracies were all these nationalist parties lost all elections. See Corsica in France, the Corsican clearly stated they wanted to stay French, like in Canada when the majority of the French Canadians stated they preferred to stay in Canada than to become independent.
Do not mix will of violent extremists (or less violent like in Canada) and will of the majority in Democracies. :book:

What to do to end this mess? Negotiate with the nationalists insurgents; give real power to the Iraqi Government, judge Saddam as soon as possible in a real court, not this masquerade… Will it work? No idea, but let’s try…

Taffy_is_a_Taff

07-08-2005, 23:22

I was just saying that multinational democracies don't give up the territory of smaller nations easily. In the future if the Kurds all voted for independence would the main Iraqi govt. be willing to grant it to them? They could easily say "well, this is a democracy and only a minority want an independent Kurdish state so it would be undemocratic to make one". A very similar thing happened when the Spanish Basques overwhelmingly supported a constitution that was different to that implemented after Franco's death: the excuse was basically "well, this is a democratic country and the majority of its people did not vote with you".

Nationalist parties do not necesarily gather all the votes of those who want greater degrees of independence and cultural recognition: just look at the ranks of the different unionist parties of the U.K. Consider the referenda held on the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly: both gained majority support and were implemented by a unionist party. I don't think that the votes for nationalist parties in different democracies really demonstrate the level of support for self determination and cultural survival.

Sorry, I do blabber on. Anyway, some English people in the media, actually some amongst the general public and the political elite, were furious that the Scots and Welsh wanted a more significant say in their own affairs.

Proletariat

07-09-2005, 01:59

Contrary what others may have said, I, for one, do not believe the mere expression of opposition to appeasement is prima facie evidence of intoxication.

I, however, will go beyond the mere opposition of appeasement.

We have suicidal enemies who are doing everything they possibly can to kill us. If we allow them, sooner or later, they will. We need to kill as many of them as we can as soon as we can, but ultimately, the solution is deterrence. Not easily obtained. But because something is not easy does not mean it is not the solution.

But we have done it before. We turned an entire nation of maniacal, suicidal Kamikaze fanatics into surrender monkeys in a period of three days. How? By vanquishing them. Utterly and totally. Convincing them in no uncertain terms that everything they held to be of importance faced certain annihilation if their behavior continued.

By contrast, today's terrorists understand that their families will be financially, and enormously, compensated for their selfless heroism. They have no fear whatsoever, (much less than any metaphysical certitude) that the Fallujahan home in which their mothers and baby sisters occupy is destined to become a tinderbox. They instead send their families away (along with their Al Qaeda leadership) and get the glorious, ultimate, house-to-house jihad with the Marines they seek in the first place.

The terrorists are not supermen and they are not animals; they are human beings. As were the Japanese, they are capable of anguish, grief, pain, suffering, and ultimately despair and disillusionment like any other human beings when properly inflicted. IMO, those are indisputable human truths; but you can't be worried about civilians. Indeed, civilians must be the targets. We are alive today in large part because our predecessors like FDR, Truman, and Generals Curtis LeMay and Hap Arnold had the courage to face those terrible decisions head on. We intentionally, and willingly inflicted suffering upon millions of civilians as a fundamental core strategy of unconditional surrender and total victory.

Call me evil, just as bad as them, whatever. But make sure you call those heroes evil as well. Because they did what they had to do to win.

And ask yourself if you want to win or lose? And none of this "If we do this, we let the terrorists win" crap. I'll define winning and losing very simply: Do you want your children to live or die? Because yesterday was merely another reminder that they are coming to LA, they are coming to DC. They will use WMD on our civilians when they get them. And our children are going to die.

Steppe Merc

07-09-2005, 02:30

Taffy_is_a_Taff

07-09-2005, 02:38

how the hell did I get so off topic???

Kagemusha

07-09-2005, 03:53

Why i get ignored?Do you americans think that i am pro terrorist In my country i am an right winger,but for your standards im leftie. :bow:

Gawain of Orkeny

07-09-2005, 04:04

Why i get ignored?

Well its because you have a low post count and your from Finland for Petes sake!!!! What do you expect? ~D

Seriously if your speaking of this

If US is after liberty they should create national states in middle east.You have to have National state befofe you can join somekind of union.

Yes there has to be a common bond. In most of these countries instead of a bond they have a genuine hatred of anyone who dosent believe or is of the same race as they .It may go back to theri still a tribal society.

Kagemusha

07-09-2005, 04:10

You know so much Finland is the only coyntry that has beaten soviet union in convetnional war not once butt twice.If we are so little you are insulting us by your size.

Proletariat

07-09-2005, 04:20

how the hell did I get so off topic???

I prolly went more off topic than you.

Steppe, you are one of my very favorite posters here. Your thoughtful purity is always evident, but your naivety always astounds me.

Papewaio

07-09-2005, 04:33

Yes there has to be a common bond. In most of these countries instead of a bond they have a genuine hatred of anyone who dosent believe or is of the same race as they .It may go back to theri still a tribal society.

Gawain which race are you referring to?

Saudi Arabian Arabs or Kurds or Persians or Malaysians or ...

Demographics for Iran for instance:
Persians (51%), Azerbaijan Turks (24%), Gilaki and Mazandarani (8%), Kurds (7%), Arabs (3%), Baluchi (2%), Lurs (2%), Turkmen Turks (2%), Qashqai Turks, Armenians, Jews, Assyrians and others.

Kagemusha

07-09-2005, 04:42

Gawain which race are you referring to?

Saudi Arabian Arabs or Kurds or Persians or Malaysians or ...

Demographics for Iran for instance:
Persians (51%), Azerbaijan Turks (24%), Gilaki and Mazandarani (8%), Kurds (7%), Arabs (3%), Baluchi (2%), Lurs (2%), Turkmen Turks (2%), Qashqai Turks, Armenians, Jews, Assyrians and others.

Papewaio is correct if you look at Switzerland there are German speaking Swiz speaking ,French speaking ,Italian speaking kantons.And they all get along pretty well.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-09-2005, 06:05

You know so much Finland is the only coyntry that has beaten soviet union in convetnional war not once butt twice.If we are so little you are insulting us by your size.

I didnt insult Finland. It was a joke. Please accept my apologiy if I offended you. I admire the Finns. Hey no nation has people who speak more languages than the US. But you need a common language.

Gawain which race are you referring to?

All

Papewaio is correct if you look at Switzerland there are German speaking Swiz speaking ,French speaking ,Italian speaking kantons.And they all get along pretty well.

Im sure most of them speak German or some common language. Hell we got more people and ethnic groups in New York City alone than they do in all of Switzerland. ~D

PanzerJaeger

07-09-2005, 06:22

A historical side note:

You know so much Finland is the only coyntry that has beaten soviet union in convetnional war not once butt twice.If we are so little you are insulting us by your size.

Which wars were those? Thanks..

Red Harvest

07-09-2005, 06:59

I'd never, ever call that winning. I will say it: if you kill innocents, then you've lost, and you're as bad as them. Basic surivival isn't enough. If you do so, then you're no better than animals, killing each other for a next meal.
Yeah, I'm a wus, a bleeding heart. But it is never, ever, ever ok to kill innocents. What you are advocating will turn every last Muslim against us. It would turn the average Joe Muslim into a suicide bomber. It would make everything that they say about us true. And in the end, if we did somehow win, it wouldn't be worth it. Because while your children might be alive, countless of other innocent children would be dead.

And about Japan: the people who ordered the destruction of those innocents should have been tried, and locked up indefinetly. They were murders, pure in simple in my eyes. That includes the Presidents.

Sorry, but that is just too naive. If you eat, you kill innocents, they just aren't human innocents (at least, I hope not. ~D ) If it is a war of survival then winning is winning, period. If you, your culture, and your people are dead, it really doesn't matter if you fought honorably. That doesn't mean one must strive to be barbaric or brutal--and it can be counterproductive. (WWII WAS about survival.)

Innocents do die in war, no matter what efforts are made to avoid it. If anybody tried to conduct a war without killing any innocents they would be pathetically easy to beat. Strap a few innocents to your tanks, put one on board each bomber, place a couple in each of your own potential target zones, and with each artillery battery and company, then walk right over the enemy who would not engage. See the calculus? You simply cannot artificially tie your hands like that. It doesn't work, it will be manipulated by enemies who have no moral restraint. There is no such thing as a truly civilized war. The closest you can come to that is in some ancient and classical times when champions were chosen and fought in lieu of the respective armies. It worked when everyone played by the same rules and the stakes were small (border disputes and the like)...it didn't work for the Gauls vs. the Romans. It would not be used for "winner takes all."

About WWII Japan, those atom bombs saved hundreds of thousands of lives if not millions (most of them Japanese civilians who would have starved before an invasion or before any peace agreement, not to mention all our POW's who were slated for execution), and by their example probably BILLIONS of lives by avoiding WWIII. Those people you condemn as murderers saved many lives. Try them? Better to pin more medals on them for having the guts to make the tough decisions. After the bombs were dropped was no longer any illusion of how devastating a fully modern war could and most likely would become. The whole concept of antiseptically clean war is a dangerous illusion. If anything, the concept makes the idea of war as a standard policy tool easier to accept, and that is not a good thing.

In WWII, most of the bombing of the civilian centers was an effort to reduce/disrupt arms production by killing the workers. Bombing factories was not working (it inflicted too high a cost on the bombers and the precision really wasn't there yet.) Like it or not, winning was the most important part of WWII. There are notable exceptions, but destroying the cities was an attack on the infrastructure of the enemy nations. Both the Japanese and German regimes operated with institutionalized racism and both had succeeded in brainwashing a rather large proportion of their populations *at the time.* The war was of a dirtier nature, one of race/ethnicity rather than just nations. It was not a war of choice for the allies, it was a war of survival pressed upon them.

Having said all that, I still mourn for and sympathize with those innocents or civilians. I am interested in hearing the stories of survivors and I have compassion for them and their loss. It was a horrible waste and it should not have happened. A quote from Golda Meir before the peace talks with Anwar Sadat is appropriate here, "We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours."

On a side note, people like to go off on Sherman/Sheridan/Hunter in the ACW--I don't get it. If you look at Sherman's "total war" it was not really that horrific. It was a logistical approach to war and in some ways quite humane--destruction of property and foodstuffs rather than humans. This was standard scorched earth, minus the traditional slaughter of civilians. In many ways it was similar to a siege, but on a massive scale, and mobile. One might argue that the anger at Sherman only persists because he really ticked folks off by destroying or taking all their stuff, while leaving them alive to suffer and be mad about it! ~;)

I'll close with this: I'm coming to the conclusion that the true measure of a nation is not as much how it won a war, but what it did after it was victorious. Was the world better for the victory? Would it have been better for the world had the other side won instead? Were the conquered properly treated after capitulation? (A LOT of emphasis on this last point as it is most often the answer to the other questions as well.)

Red Harvest

07-09-2005, 07:18

Im sure most of them speak German or some common language. Hell we got more people and ethnic groups in New York City alone than they do in all of Switzerland. ~D

Not really a single common language. They have multiple common languages. I haven't been there, but my father-in-law teaches some university courses there every few years and we discuss it, fascinating place.

Similar is Singapore. English is used as a sort of common language, but depending on where you are or what your are doing you might be more likely to hear Malay, Mandarin, or Tamil. The majority of the population is ethnic chinese. And English wasn't sufficient at times. I enjoyed listening and participating in the true melange of languages that were used in the workplace at the production floor level. There are so many multi-national companies and expats that you can hear virtually anything when walking down the street (French, German, Italian, and many others from Eastern Europe or Northern Europe--Spanish was rare though.) It is one of those places where you wish you knew a dozen languages rather than just being somewhat familiar with a couple.

Kagemusha

07-09-2005, 09:43

A historical side note:

Which wars were those? Thanks..

Soviiet Union attacked Finland in Winter war 30.11.1939 and peace was made 13.3.1940.Finland attacked Russia 26.6.1941 and another peace was made 5.9.1944.

InsaneApache

07-09-2005, 10:05

Why British have to have an foothold on Ireland?I think that Scottish too have their own country

Because we happen to live in a democracy and the majority of people in Ulster like it like that. The Scots have always had equal status to the English....the clue is in the name UNITED kingdom. Not the Kingdom of England incorporating Scotland and Wales. *sigh* how many more times *sigh*

Ok back on topic.

In the 70's and 80's the IRA launched a bombing campaign on the mainland. Although they achieved some 'successes' they ultimatley failed. Why? Because they didn't have the base support on the mainland that they had enjoyed in Ireland (Eire and Ulster)....

However they did have a recognised political agenda...the formation of a nationalist/marxist state in Ireland (go figure all the Yanks who dug deep for Noraid)

Like it or not, at some point someone is going to have to talk to these people to get this sorted. I'm aware that lots of posters won't like this. It is a fact. History shows that terrorists CAN be defeated with the support of the population but there has always been a round of dialogue to finish it off completely.

Uncomfortable and grating as it is. :bow:

Tribesman

07-09-2005, 14:54

Because we happen to live in a democracy and the majority of people in Ulster like it like that.
Apache , don't you mean the poeple in Northern Ireland , there are more than 6 counties in Ulster ~:)

Gawain of Orkeny

07-09-2005, 15:29

Innocents do die in war, no matter what efforts are made to avoid it. If anybody tried to conduct a war without killing any innocents they would be pathetically easy to beat.

Thats not what hes saying. Hes saying targeting civilians is always wrong and I agree. If they are killed by colateral damge is another matter entirely.

If it is a war of survival then winning is winning, period. If you, your culture, and your people are dead, it really doesn't matter if you fought honorably. That doesn't mean one must strive to be barbaric or brutal--and it can be counterproductive. (WWII WAS about survival.)

So that Japanese and Germans according to you were justified in their war crimes as well as us. There were still rules of war even in this conflict .

Steppe Merc

07-09-2005, 15:47

Steppe, you are one of my very favorite posters here. Your thoughtful purity is always evident, but your naivety always astounds me.
Well, I guess that's what being young is for, before I get all cynical. ~;)
And I also guess that's why I'm never going to be in charge of any sort of government, because I won't make choices like that.
And I know that views like your own and Red Harvest aren't particullary rare, nor are you monster for thinking that way. I just could never bring myself to support the murder of innocent civilians (happy Harvest? ~;) ).

edit: Thank you Gawain. Yes, I do know that innocents die in war. And that is certaintly horrible, but it is totally different than killing innocents for the sole purpose because they are non combatants.

Taffy_is_a_Taff

07-09-2005, 15:49

Insane Apache:
You could argue that the IRA have won by arms and by talking.

When Ireland went wholeheartedly (and democratically) for the idea of independence all sorts of crap broke out including a war with the British government forces and then a civil war in the Irish Free State about whether to let 6 counties of Ulster remain in the U.K.

Back then it didn't matter what a majority of the people of Ireland wanted because the majority of the people in the U.K. did not want an independent Ireland. Now it is just when a majority of the people of Northern Ireland want unification with Ireland they can have it. That's a big difference.

The IRA have been granted concession after concession to stop them going back to violence (even though at one point the British government told them that they weren't achieving anything as the British Army probably lost more soldiers in training at German bases than at the hands of the IRA). Admitedly, British troop reductions have not occurred at a similar level as agreed and the Loyalists haven't been forced to disarm either but that's besides the point.

Anyway, the IRA have basically destroyed the interest of almost all mainland U.K. residents in expending lives trying to maintain Northern Ireland as part of the U.K. Now it seems like a united Ireland is almost inevitable and nobody in the mainland really cares: a pretty big difference compared to the situation when all this trouble flared up again in the 60s.

You could almost call the Good Friday Agreement a negotiated surrender by both sides(but one had achieved a lot more than the other).

As for NorAid: they advertise themslevs as a charity more than as a lets-go-kill-us-some-Brits organisation.

barocca

07-09-2005, 16:50

A historical side note:

:
You know so much Finland is the only coyntry that has beaten soviet union in convetnional war not once butt twice.

Which wars were those? Thanks..

Finland defeated Russia in 1917-8 and gained independence with the (after the fact) assitance of a sympathetic Germany.
(they were more or less a client state before then)

They went back to war with Rusisia/Soviet Union in 1939 when Stalin demanded Finnish territory and invaded Finland when his demand was refused.
(the Winter War).
Finland put every man under 60 into uniform and came up with 225,000 regulars,
men over 60 and women volunteers formed the "civic defence forces" (200,000).
"Civic" in name only, they fought alongside the regulars in the front lines.

Finlands airforce was 200 planes of many and varied types - they accounted for over 900 Soviet aircraft despite always being short of spares.
Finnish forces fought against overwhelming odds, Finnish companies defended against Soviet battalions, Finnish battalions defended against Soviet divisions and Finnish divisions fought against Soviet army formations (around 6 to 12 divisions).

Finland suffered some 75,000 casualties (almost 20% of her armed forces)
Stalin lost somewhere around a million men before he gave up and called a truce. (incidently that was around 30% of his entire army at that time)
(Stalin had captured about half the territory he had demanded)
Not one nation lifted a finger to help the Finns, though several thousand volunteers from Denmark, Estonia and Sweden (and others) joined the Finnish army.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Soviet losses to the Finns contributed to Stalins rapid modernisation of the Soviet Army, which was well under way when the Germans invaded the USSR in 1941 - Hitler should have supported the Finns in 1939!

In 1941 Finland went back to war with the Soviets for the THIRD time as partners of the German Axis, (the Continuation War) recapturing the territory lost in 1939. The Germans were preaching the invasion of Russia as a Christian crusade against an Atheist Nation.

When it was obvious the Axis were losing the war they put out feelers to Stalin asking for terms, his terms were reasonable, hand over all terrirtory they had lost to the Soviets in 1939 and expel the German forces in Finland.
Finland complied (the Arctic War) and Stalin, remembering the horrific losses his forces suffered in his invasion of Finland in 1939, honoured the agreement.

So Finland actually fought the Russians/Soviets three times, once victoriuos, once fought the Soviets to a standstill and the third they lost but were able to negotiate a favourable end to hostilities due to their courage and the casualties they had inflicted on Stalins forces in 1939.

Finland was the only "Axis" nation not conquered by the Allies.
(and i use the term "Axis" loosely, as far as I am aware Finland never declared war on UK or USA or anyone else, only Russia/Soviet Union)

B.

barocca

07-09-2005, 17:21

Gawain of Orkeny

07-09-2005, 17:26

Are you saying fight fire with fire? You dont want us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs? You think we should lower ourselves to their level? What do you think this is TOTAL WAR?

I bow to your wisdom :bow:

Ser Clegane

07-09-2005, 17:34

Will it stop the bombings?
Yes - the section of the human gene pool that is suseptible to radical religous BS will be exterminated.

One question - how many innocents would you be willing to kill to achieve this? Would one for every killed innocent on our side be enough? Or do we need to kill 10 innocents on their side for each of ours to make sure they understood?

Proletariat

07-09-2005, 17:38

Or do we need to kill 10 innocents on their side for each of ours to make sure they understood?

15. It must be so horrific and unbearable that only the truly insane would consider this method.

(I just chimed in since barocca's post and my post #103 were on a similar feel)

Ser Clegane

07-09-2005, 17:48

15. It must be so horrific and unbearable that only the truly insane would consider this method.

Actually you are right. I think this might work. And actually this idea is so brilliant - we should further expand on it.
After all, many more people are killed by "ordinary" murderers than by terrorists.
Why not the same treatment here? Catch a murderer - and then - not only death penalty (after all this kiddie-stuff doesn't work, in countries with death penalty we still have murderers) - wipe the whole family of the murderer, wipe their friends and pets from the surface of this planet.
Now that would be a real deterrant. I can already see the crime rates dropping. Let's embrace this beautiful new world. Let's start right now.

Proletariat

07-09-2005, 17:51

Actually you are right. I think this might work. And actually this idea is so brilliant - we should further expand on it.
After all, many more people are killed by "ordinary" murderers than by terrorists.
Why not the same treatment here? Catch a murderer - and then - not only death penalty (after all this kiddie-stuff doesn't work, in countries with death penalty we still have murderers) - wipe the whole family of the murderer, wipe their friends and pets from the surface of this planet.
Now that would be a real deterrant. I can already see the crime rates dropping. Let's embrace this beautiful new world. Let's start right now.

Was this the first thing that occured to you after reading my post? Sarcasm aside?

barocca

07-09-2005, 17:52

One question - how many innocents would you be willing to kill to achieve this? Would one for every killed innocent on our side be enough? Or do we need to kill 10 innocents on their side for each of ours to make sure they understood?

it was proposed here recently that parents of a child who commits a crime be held responsible for their upbringing of said child has failed in some way, or they have been inattentive enough not to notice child shortcomings and take effective measures to correct them.

i am merely expanding the principle

i am sorry to those i offend, but when you have seen a young woman cut in two by a flying cash register and her guts billowing around you as her upper torso passes you by,
as i do each and every night when i go to sleep,
well, you kinda lose all sympathy for murdering terrorist nutters.
(and i my case ESPECIALLY IRA NUTTERS)

B.

Ser Clegane

07-09-2005, 17:53

Was this the first thing that occured to you after reading my post? Sarcasm aside?

No - it was more like the second thing that occured to me after barocca's post. I guess I just quoted you last post because the whole idea got pretty much under my skin...

barocca

07-09-2005, 17:56

i was also one of those unfortunates who got to watch the second aircraft slam into the trade towers LIVE because some camera crew happened to be on the top of an adjacent building and were broadcasting at the time

i threw up on the spot

B.

Ser Clegane

07-09-2005, 17:59

i am sorry to those i offend, but when you have seen a young woman cut in two by a flying cash register and her guts billowing around you as her upper torso passes you by,
as i do each and every night when i go to sleep,
well, you kinda lose all sympathy for murdering terrorist nutters.
(and i my case ESPECIALLY IRA NUTTERS)

B.

I will not claim that I understand your feelings, as I have fortunately not been in this kind of situation (and I pray that the day never comes).

You will find very few people who have sympathies for murdering terrorist nutters and I fully agree with this statement you made:

if you are a murdering terrorist nutter you have got to go.

However, under no circumstances should we be the ones who deliberately do the same thing that you, your friends and family were forced to experience to other innocent people.

EDIT: sorry if I appeared overly aggressive in my previous posts,

barocca

07-09-2005, 18:01

I will not claim that I understand your feelings, as I have fortunately not been in this kind of situation (and I pray that the day never comes).

You will find very few people who have sympathies for murdering terrorist nutters and I fully agree with this statement you made:

However, under no circumstances should we be the ones who deliberately do the same thing that you, your friends and family were forced to experience to other innocent people.

naturally,
we simply take them down to the cells and shoot them individually one by one

B.

barocca

07-09-2005, 18:02

i am taking no offense,

my posts ARE offensive after all.

barocca

07-09-2005, 18:07

as far as i understand what i read,

the Wahhabism sect propose that no infidel, no matter how young, is innocent,
they are all guilty of heresy? against islam

when they say wives and children are forfeit, it means wives and daughters are slaves and sons are eunuched or killed

they dont recoginise our non-combatants as innocents, hence their "reward in heaven" for slaughtering women and children,
why should we recognise their families as innocents?

Gawain of Orkeny

07-09-2005, 18:19

Its like thefight in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid "first lets get the rules straight"kicks him in the balls"there are no damn rules" Both sides have to fight by the same rules even if that means none. Theres no refferees or penalties for cheating. This is about survival its not football or some game that we are playing. Once more this is TOTAL WAR. Get that through your heads its not just some criminal actions as many would have you believe. As Ive said over and over until you make these people and any other enemy in history for that matter believe you will never give up and that they can never win the battle will continue. Victory can only be achieved by strength.

Steppe Merc

07-09-2005, 18:22

Because they didn't do anything wrong, that's why. It's only the terrorists that are the criminals, not the 2 year old baby.
Anyone that purpoesly goes out and kills an innocents is a terrorist. Now, if you want to kill off all the terrorists, wouldn't that include the soldiers that executed those orders?

Ser Clegane

07-09-2005, 18:23

Once more this is TOTAL WAR.

That's your opinion - nothing more, nothing less. Neither repeating it over and over again, nor writing it in capital letters makes it an undisputable truth.

Proletariat

07-09-2005, 18:24

That's your opinion - nothing more, nothing less. Neither repeating it over and over again, nor writing it in capital letters makes it an undisputable truth.

Do you believe this group will never get their hands on actual WMDs? Do you think if they do, they will not use it?

Proletariat

07-09-2005, 18:25

Anyone that purpoesly goes out and kills an innocents is a terrorist.

What is your alternative solution?

Ser Clegane

07-09-2005, 18:31

Do you believe this group will never get their hands on actual WMDs? Do you think if they do, they will not use it?

Do you seriously think going after the children and families would prevent this from happening?
Even if you eradicate oneterrorist group this way, you will also plant the seeds for undying hatred. If you think that a massacre of innocents will eradicate the hate you would be very wrong.

Proletariat

07-09-2005, 18:36

Even if you eradicate oneterrorist group this way, you will also plant the seeds for undying hatred. If you think that a massacre of innocents will eradicate the hate you would be very wrong.

Tendentious misinterpretation of my view aside...

If we can agree that it is a matter of time before this group gets a WMD, and they obviously have no qualms with using it, how do you stop it?

Are you foolish enough to still think that western intelligence can keep up with these people?

Proletariat

07-09-2005, 18:39

I'm not advocating we nuke the terrorists back to the Garden of Eden now. The reality is we can't at this point; I understand that. Pre-emption as a global strategy is infinitely more destabilizing than strategic deterrence. But how can you be sure that you will have enough time to detect and prevent another, even more horrible attack on America? And when the time comes, it will be a tragedy. Certainly nobody could possibly have called for carpet bombing Germany in 1938. But there were those who predicted that it would be inevitable.

I don't think we can appease the terrorists, I don't think we can kill them all, and sorry Steppe, but I'm just not one of those "love is the answer, people" kinda girl. I don't think we can declare victory and go home. I certainly don't think we can declare defeat and go home. So all I can think of to this point is to continue to fight them imperfectly as long as we can to delay the inevitable.

And I don't see how that deters the enemy from attacking. Unfortunately, our strategic deterrent crumbled on 9/11 along with the Twin Towers. Hell, even during the height of the Cold War in 1962, we never needed a Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security? Sure, pal, that would be right over there in Silo #76. And I'm not smart enough to tell you how to re-establish a deterrent.

And without one, we gotta be lucky every time, 24/7, and they gotta be lucky only once. They will eventually get lucky, and I expect we would then retaliate reflexively, spasmodically, and terribly. Then I would suggest instead of reading the Org daily, one might find Revelations to be more appropriate.

Ser Clegane

07-09-2005, 19:40

If we can agree that it is a matter of time before this group gets a WMD, and they obviously have no qualms with using it, how do you stop it?

Quite frankly - we cannot with a 100% certainty.
IMO it is not a matter of if but only a matter of when and on which scale terrorists will be able to use more simple, chemical based weapons (keep in mind that it already happened in Japan).

Are you foolish enough to still think that western intelligence can keep up with these people?

So what is your suggestion? Being "tougher"? That's a bit vague isn't it? How tough? What is the price you are willing to pay to incrementally increase your security?

Gawain of Orkeny

07-09-2005, 19:45

That's your opinion - nothing more, nothing less. Neither repeating it over and over again, nor writing it in capital letters makes it an undisputable truth.

No thats the opinion of Bin Laden and AQ. The fact that you fail to recognise it as fact is the problem here.

Proletariat

07-09-2005, 19:45

So what is your suggestion? Being "tougher"? That's a bit vague isn't it? How tough? What is the price you are willing to pay to incrementally increase your security?

Once again, since we agree it's when, not if they use WMDs on us, what is your suggestion?

I am not being vague. I am not just saying let's be 'tough.' I am bemoaning the loss of our strategic deterrent. And attempting to remind readers of the infancy of the creation of the deterrent at the end of WWII, and the core essence of its credibility. We did it before, we'd do it again. And how terrorists are not some sort of super or subhuman "evildoers", immune from or incapable of human emotions and desires. They would react in a similar manner as the "dirty Japs" of WWII.

Of course I layed out a scenario of annihilation of the terrorists and their families; that is precisely the vision they need to have in their mind - and the "metaphysical certainty" of its occurrence - when they contemplate, and then reject the actual use of WMD on US soil. That is the goal. Enable us to fight a conventional (or even better, a "Cold") war that we can fight and win over a long period of time. Heck, liberals if they want, can resist our efforts at every turn, just like they did in the last Cold War. We can win with them or without them. As long as we can keep it cold.

But given the absence of a credible nuclear stategic deterrent, it is beyond wishful thinking, it is plainly illogical to assume that WMDs on US soil will simply never happen. When it does, I believe that the retaliatory use of nuclear weapons in kind will become inevitable.

At that point, I believe it will be considered axiomatic that we should have done it sooner. As we should have done something about Hitler in 1933. But certainly, nobody could have argued that in 1933.

Ser Clegane

07-09-2005, 20:06

And how terrorists are not some sort of super or subhuman "evildoers", immune from or incapable of human emotions and desires. They would react in a similar manner as the "dirty Japs" of WWII.

And that is where I think you are completely wrong - this enemy is different from an enemy like Japan in WWII. Your enemy is not a nation but a group of individuals with their very own idea of what is right and wrong.

If your enemy is a nation you can force them into submission as at some point the majority of people will be sick of a war that actually never has been "their" war.
Do you really think you can force these terrorists into submission by showing that you would be willing to not only destroy them but also their people? This is not fighting fire with fire - this is fighting fire with storm, you would only blow the flames higher..

My solution? Who said I know the solution? Try to kill the terrorists wherever and whenever you find them (Afghanistan was the right approach) and try to separate the "normal" muslim population from those who lie to them and claim to fight in the name of Islam.

Will this always work? Of course it won't - this is not some game where somebody can give you the walkthrough. But just because it does not work to your full and immediate satisfaction does not mean that the big club will.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-09-2005, 20:11

And that is where I think you are completely wrong - this enemy is different from an enemy like Japan in WWII. Your enemy is not a nation but a group of individuals with their very own idea of what is right and wrong.

No its not. The Japanese had their very own idea of what is right and wrong. The only difference is these people are spread among numerous nations . Its up to these nations to stamp them out but It seems they are more of disinterested bystanders at the least. As long as the terrorists dont attack them its ok. Too many western nations seem to have taken this same approach.

econ21

07-09-2005, 20:11

As we should have done something about Hitler in 1933. But certainly, nobody could have argued that in 1933.

Now you've raised it, I've been thinking of the "Hitler" analogy. The thing is, I wonder if the correct analogy is with Hitler in 1921 or 1923, not in 1933? There is no state that the AQ terrorists control (thanks, in part, to the toppling of the Taliban). So it is not a question of taking a tough military posture, as say in the Cold War.

But AQ does seem to have significant support in places like Algeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. End this and we win the war on terror. If we think more in terms of what could have been done to stop Hitler coming to power in the 1920s, we may get more useful insights.

In particular, it leads to a focus on the societies that create these terrorists. I like the rhetoric of the US neocons about transforming the Middle East, although I am not sure the means selected - invading Iraq and supporting Sharon - are going to have the desired effect.

Ser Clegane

07-09-2005, 20:14

Too many western nations seem to have taken this same approach.

Wrong - we do not disagree with regard to the stamping - we disagree with regard to the shoe-size

ichi

07-09-2005, 20:16

Now you've raised it, I've been thinking of the "Hitler" analogy. The thing is, I wonder if the correct analogy is with Hitler in 1921 or 1923, not in 1933? There is no state that the AQ terrorists control (thanks, in part, to the toppling of the Taliban). So it is not a question of taking a tough military posture, as say in the Cold War.

But AQ does seem to have significant support in places like Algeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. End this and we win the war on terror. If we think more in terms of what could have been done to stop Hitler coming to power in the 1920s, we may get more useful insights.

In particular, it leads to a focus on the societies that create these terrorists. I like the rhetoric of the US neocons about transforming the Middle East, although I am not sure the means selected - invading Iraq and supporting Sharon - are going to have the desired effect.

Well said Simon , I think we are on the same page.

The question is how to combat terrorism without creating more terrorists.

ichi :bow:

Gawain of Orkeny

07-09-2005, 20:19

But AQ does seem to have significant support in places like Algeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. End this and we win the war on terror.

How invade then all?

Proletariat

07-09-2005, 20:20

Too many western nations seem to have taken this same approach.

This blatant hand wringing is neutrality in the face of pure evil.

PanzerJaeger

07-09-2005, 20:36

Thanks for the information Barroca. I never counted the Winter War as a victory. :bow:

Steppe Merc

07-09-2005, 22:26

This blatant hand wringing is neutrality in the face of pure evil.
So would you take Bush's aproach and claim that it's either one or the other, with us or against us? Even though most of the neutral countries are decent, while a bunch of our allies have very very bad people in charge?

Idomeneas

07-10-2005, 00:01

now back to the topic at hand

Infidels,
the Koran authorises the following measures against Infidels,
offer the infidel the chance to convert to Islam,
if he refuses beat him until he submits,
if he fails to submit then his wife, children and property are forfeit,
if he still refuses to submit - kill him.

and thats the part that the Wahhabism base their vies of Islam on.

How do we stop it?
being nice guys wont do it.

Friends of mine were caught up in 9/11, and relatives of mine were caught up in London, and I survived 3 IRA bombings during the 70's
- (one of them had i been 2 feet to my left i would have died with everyone else)

Naturally I have a radical solution

You catch or identify (from remains) a terrorist? Kill him kill his wife his children his parents his brothers his sisters his grandparents his aunts his uncles his cousins his nephews his nieces,
his wifes parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents, uncles aunts cousins nephews and neices,
aunts husbands, uncles wives, their children, their brothers their sisters their parents their grandparents, their cousins, nephews and nieces.
make the consequences of being a murdering terrorist so horrible no-one in their sane mind would contemplate commiting such an act.

Does that make us terrorists?
yes.
Will it stop the bombings?
Yes - the section of the human gene pool that is suseptible to radical religous BS will be exterminated.

NOTE this post is not directed at any one religous or racial group, i dont care if you are black, white, red, blue or green, likewise i dont care if you pray to god, allah, buddha or the Potato King and Mr Flibble - if you are a murdering terrorist nutter you have got to go.
B.

I think this is the best way to create more terrorists. It also reminds me what nazis were doing during occupation. Killing every male over 16 in whole blocks to avenge the death of one german by partizans. Did it worked? hell no. The only thing they had was more people with nothing to lose. The most dangerous kind of warrior.

IMO more important than the puppets are the puppeteer. We have a situation with fanatics ready to kill and get killed without doubting about what their doing. I try not to look the pick of the iceberg. I mean those murderous individuals. There can be millions of reasons that make them so. Some of them are pure evil, some of them religious fanatic, some of them have dreams of power, some of them might lost everything in a NATO-US attack and paying back. I think the most important is to see who is directing this whole thing and what he-they try to achieve. I mean who wins something out? Is it only a comic book style madman living in a cave that doing all this? and if yes what he wants? world domination? nobody can be that stupid even thinking that after all that he is gonna sit in a table with G8 and put conditions. Is Ladin the big bad guy? or the head puppet? And if he yes who pulls the strings?
Those are some of my thoughts. Over the years reading history i ve learned one thing.. its never black and white. Its always more complicated.
I dont know who is doing all that things but his greatest asset is this..
The world we live is unfair. And those unjustices provide the puppets for the puppeteers. Before we skin them fry them shoot and hang them we must first understand who they are. Who is setting this mechanism.

econ21

07-10-2005, 00:31

But AQ does seem to have significant support in places like Algeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. End this and we win the war on terror.

How invade then all?

I don't know. I suspect invading them all would be wholly counterproductive. However, my gut feeling is that the other part of the US neocon agenda may be right - democraticisation may be part of the answer. Having a military or other repressive regime - however mild - seems to like to create the conditions for violent dissent to fester. They typically don't allow either the political or the economic freedoms that may provide outlets for the energies of educated young men.

Plus some of the non-democratic regimes seem to sponsor some of the dangerous Islamic fundamentalist ideas that motivate AQ, perhaps in an effort to distract attention - hate the Jews/America not us etc - and/or get legitimacy. Saudi Arabia is the obvious example, but Pakistan has a pretty shaddy past with the Taliban and Egypt tolerates a lot of anti-semitic propaganda that sits odd with its peace with Israel.

Now there's the real risk that introducing democracy into the Middle East will lead to radical Islamic governments, as apparently was going to happen in Algeria before the military annulled the election. If so, I'm inclined to say, so be it. My suspicion is that democracies don't want to start wars or sponsor terrorism. Given the chance, people want to get on and live their lives, not cause trouble. Any fledgling democracies would need some constitutional guarantees to try to stop new governments kicking away the ladder and becoming undemocratic. Even then, there's a risk. But democraticisation seems the most promising route I've come across so far.

sharrukin

07-10-2005, 00:34

One way is the "Sword of Gideon" approach.

I think what we need is to field teams, such as the Mossad did in the operation spawned by the Munich massacre. Target the terrorists directly wherever they are, and use military assets to conduct strikes with aircraft, cruise missiles, special forces, where possible when the target is identified by human intelligence (not electronic).

This would be possible with the cooperation of 'Old Europe', Russia, and a few allies from around the world. It would require the nations involved to target any terrorist targets or it would degenerate into a partisan debate over which group of murderers should be excluded. This means the IRA, Chechens, PLO, Al Qaeda, Albanian groups, and others who target civilians rather than military targets. The attack on the U.S.S. COLE for example was not an act of terrorism (though carried out by terrorists) due to the nature of the target.

This IMO would work, and could garner the support of many of the nations we would need to get the job done. We would need to avoid exempting targets simply because we think they have a legitimate grievance. Any attack on civilians, regardless of the cause should be subject to retaliation.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-10-2005, 00:47

barocca

07-10-2005, 01:02

the IRA was not willing to use WMD's, eventually they realised that the UK was not going to back down to terror bombings and that killing innocents was counterproductive,
the IRA began to try to legitimise themselves by issuing warnings with only just sufficient time to evacuate all civilians,
the UK people responded by accepting Sein Fein as a valid political entity seeing the IRA had made their campaign more humane,
eventually the IRA came to the conclusion getting people into parliment was more important that blowing things up.

The radical islamists have no such qualms about WMD,
their belief system allows any force required to bring the infidel (thats you and me peoples) to their knees and beg for permission to submit.

We will see a WMD attack on the US, we will see thousands if not millions of casualties in a single stroke.
At that time the US will be enraged and the people demanding retribution,
We will see smoking glowing craters wherever terrorists are.

Naturally the UN will condemn such action, and the US response will be quite blunt (along the lines of "go and self procreate yourselves")
On that day I will be sending donations to the US emabssy to assist in the purchase of more missiles.

Terrorists have no morals and no qualms, these ones believe that if they kill enough Infidels they go straight to heaven where there will be a large number of willing virgins just for them. what a crock of excrement.

Their belief system regarding Jihad and the rewards thereof is totally whacked.

How do we counter a religous belief that what they are doing is good and holy?
We cannot.

Can we stop them by deploying assassination squads?
No, they want to die. Assassinate them and they become martyrs for the faith and a beacon for others to follow.

So i suggest something that will scare them,
the total loss of their families

do you think they will be so readily willing to sacrifce their own wives, mothers and daughters?

...if he brings a knife, you bring a gun,
if he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morge...

Offer another solution that will work and I will listen.

Tell us how we are going to stop those who believe it is their religous duty to slaughter women and children

The Nazi's were taking revenge for attacks on military targets - that was not good.

We are talking about revenge and deterrent for the murder of our women and children, an entirely different objective.

The Cold War was because of Mutually Assured Destruction - but for it to work both sides had to believe it would occur.
We are facing something that appears to have a similar solution as the only alternative,
Mutually Assured Destruction - you bomb us and we will bomb you.

They HAVE bombed us, it IS payback time.

B.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-10-2005, 01:37

So then you think the Israelis have the right idea and are justified in not only what they do but in going much further? Certainly theirs is just a microism of the whole war on terror.

Tribesman

07-10-2005, 02:40

You catch or identify (from remains) a terrorist? Kill him kill his wife his children his parents his brothers his sisters his grandparents his aunts his uncles his cousins his nephews his nieces,
his wifes parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents, uncles aunts cousins nephews and neices,

Yes a radical solution Baroca , its called Genocide . :dizzy2:

Since you mention the bombings from the '70s , could you just explain something to me .
When after you have killed the suspects , all their families , all their families families , all the people they met or may have met , all their neighbours and those that may have been neighbours .......How do you feel 20 years later when you find out that you managed to kill all the wrong people ?

As Ive said over and over until you make these people and any other enemy in history for that matter believe you will never give up and that they can never win the battle will continue. Victory can only be achieved by strength.
An address from the Bunker , 1945 ~D ~D ~D

Ichi and Idomeneas have spotted the little flaw in the plan .
Just as an example . Look at the Irish publics reaction to the terrorists in the Easter rising , then look at their reaction once they had been executed .

Consider this statement from a Briton who led a fairly successful campain against terrorists in the '50s
"There is a very strong temptation in dealing ... with terrorism ... to act outside the law, the excuses being that the processes of law are too cumbersome, that the normal safeguards in law for the individual are not designed for an insurgency and that a terrorist deserves to be treated as an outlaw anyway. Not only is this morally wrong but, over a period, it will create more practical difficulties for a government than it solves."

So instead of an iron fist wielding a sledgehammer perhaps surgical gloves and a small scalpel would be the more effective approach .
Oh and for the conservatives out there , it would be a lot cheaper as well . ~;)

CBR

07-10-2005, 04:07

On AQ recruiting in UK link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050710/wl_nm/security_britain_recruiting_dc_1;_ylt=AqFKEm.E5acC3DWha224mxVbbBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--)

The Iraq war was one of the key causes of young British Muslims turning to terrorism, the report added.

CBR

Tribesman

07-10-2005, 04:57

On AQ recruiting in UK link
"It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment among Muslims is a perceived 'double standard' in the foreign policy of western governments, in particular Britain and the U.S," the report was quoted as saying.
No , no , no , the disilllusionment is caused by them wanting to make the world convert to Wahhabism , it has nothing whatsoever to do with foriegn policies~D ~D ~D

Idomeneas

07-10-2005, 14:20

Terrorism is like hydra. Cutting the heads leads nowhere. You have to kill the body. Its like drugs. Catching the small time dealers that sells few doses it keeps you busy but ineffective cause there always be more to do the bidding of the big boss. Its the big boss you have to target. The one with the tones.
But offcourse.. what if you cant touch the boss for x reasons..
Its odd to me, with all this technology that can trace a mouse in its hole, with all those international spy networks existing for years, that the result is total failure. So what US invaded Irac. the only benefits was the oil exploitation by friendly companies. In terror target(the initial one) they drilled a hole in water. No WMD, more agry muslims, a destroyed infrastructure wich they pay (tax payers offcourse), dead people in spain, dead people in UK, US seen as evil empire.

On the other hand we ve got systems examing our phone calls, zeppelins hovering over us, cameras on streets, economical disorder, laws that take measures for our safety (or not?), fear of an unseen enemy lurking us, a label ''war on terror'' that justifies every act done in the name of democracy, just as Inquisition was justifying everything in the name of the god. The red threat of post WWII was replaced by another since USSR collapsed and no buggy man was here anymore. People always must be afraid of something. God, the communists, the terrorists etc.

Im trying to think the big picture, till now i cant say i have an answer, but the positive thing is that im thinking and many other people do so to.

Steppe Merc

07-10-2005, 17:51

I really don't think mass murders will help anything at all. Quite the opposite: more terrorists will be created, and even more hatred will occur. Besides, how many of our allies will stand by and still support us when we murder innocents like that? Numerous people in the countries that are killing the innocents would (hopefully) object. It would cause far more problems, in addition to being totally evil (the idea, not the people advocating it).

Brenus

07-10-2005, 22:34

“You catch or identify (from remains) a terrorist? Kill him kill his wife his children his parents his brothers his sisters his grandparents his aunts his uncles his cousins his nephews his nieces, his wives parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents, uncles aunts cousins nephews and nieces,”: Why to stop here? Kill the friends also, because they can search for revenge… And you know what? We can start now. Let’s see: Osama Bin Laden, known terrorist has a family in Saudi Arabia. Let’s exterminate his family. His family is friend with the King; let’s exterminate the King’s family. After that, I am sure the US soldiers and Citizens will walk safer in the world… ~D

“Victory can only be achieved by strength". These are the last words of the French King before Agincourt… and Westmorland in Vietnam…

So the solution is to terrorise to bring democracy (to terrorise the terrorists, as said a French Interior Minister, the same accused by US to have received brides from Saddam):
So, I have ideas:
Gas them in Halabja. S***, Saddam did it before.
Let’s go with assault helicopters and armoured divisions, and Special Forces, surrounding a city (Basra) and kill them all… S*** again, Saddam did it.
OK, let’s take a leader, an Imam, and let’s go to rape his wife and daughters, and after that, we burn his beard, then we kill him, that will teach them… S*** again, Saddam did it.
OK, ok, so let’s take hostages, and when we arrest people, we put them in jail and we torture them and their family too… S***, Saddam was a dammed good democrat… He did it all. ~D

So, now, I know why the US keeps Saddam alive. He will be the next President of a Free and Democratic Iraq.
I prefer the OLD US democracy, if you don’t mind. ~:cheers:

Steppe Merc

07-10-2005, 23:03

Just to let you know, Barroca's from Australia...