Business as usual

Now one day after the terror act in London the British show that they are not willing to let terrorists change their way of living. Hooray to the British! This is the adequate way to react. :bow:
In the org I see business as usual: dogmatic discussions left against right, US against the rest of the world. This is not an adequate way to react. Now it is time to combine our forces and to strike back. Let us not discuss if Iraq war was right or wrong. It is a fact. It is time to reconsider. The Americans should reflect if all of their positions are right and what they could change to step up to Europe without loosing their focus. The Europeans should think how they could increase their efforts to fight terrorists. Both should think how they could combine their efforts and increase the efficiency.
The fight has just begun. The enemy is nor the US neither Europe. It is AQ. It is time to take on the fight.

What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Now one day after the terror act in London the British show that they are not willing to let terrorists change their way of living. Hooray to the British! This is the adequate way to react. :bow:
In the org I see business as usual: dogmatic discussions left against right, US against the rest of the world. This is not an adequate way to react. Now it is time to combine our forces and to strike back. Let us not discuss if Iraq war was right or wrong. It is a fact. It is time to reconsider. The Americans should reflect if all of their positions are right and what they could change to step up to Europe without loosing their focus. The Europeans should think how they could increase their efforts to fight terrorists. Both should think how they could combine their efforts and increase the efficiency.
The fight has just begun. The enemy is nor the US neither Europe. It is AQ. It is time to take on the fight.

What do you think?

---

There is no chance !!! the Europeans can't face the truth , so they just hiding from it , just listen to what the mayor of London said month , weeks , and days ago...

Ok then what do does this new combined effort do after Iraq. (america is not going to invade anywhere until iraq is stable)


Their cant be a combined effort if no one agrees on who to go after

Yeah let's go and beat up.. er.. (looks around)... Botswana! B*stards - they've got it coming ~:mad:

We need to fight back and attack those who are guilty but we can't do it with military force. We can't fight an enemy that we can't see or hear with the most powerful military on earth. We need to approach this matter in different ways.

You make it sound, Franconicus, as though every one of us has the power to attack the terrorists. We don't. It's up to the politicians.

More importantly, it seems that people are trying to make their omlette without breaking any eggs. It's been frequently said that we must 1) remove the threat of terrorism while simultaneously 2) not create or foster an environment that might lead somebody who's not quite a terrorist to terrorism.

I personally do not know how to square agenda items 1 & 2. If somebody already has a pretty low opinion of the West, and think that everything we do is designed to keep the Arab world down, there's not much of a tip point to avoid there. Going in on targeted operations will almost certainly infuriate them as much as anything else. Why? Because you're still not respecting their sovereignty.

Let's say we got a tip that Zarqawi was holed up in Damascus, publicly issuing fatwahs for muslims to attack Western civilians around the globe. Let's say we pulled every carrot & stick we had to get Assad to turn him over, and Assad wasn't budging (you could make a strong argument that he couldn't, his people would never forgive him and his days would be numbered). Okay, now what? Do we send in a 'targeted assault team' to go get him? How's that going to play on Al Jazeera?

"Today, in a stunning slap in the face to Syrian national sovereignty, a task force of American SeALs and Brittish SAS forces stormed a downtown Damascus hotel, kidnapping popular author and Pan-Arab activist, Abu Musad Al-Zarqawi. In flagrant violation of international law, the United States is refusing to disclose Mr. Zarqawi's location or allow him consular vists and legal representation. Although President Assad has condemned the kidnapping, very little has been done to force the Americans to return Mr. Zarqawi to freedom".

Or do we talk tough? Do we keep issuing press statements condemning Syria? Big deal! I could even see a news clip for that:
"In a heroic stand against Western oppression, President Assad today refused to cooperate with efforts by the West to imprison popular author and Pan-Arab activist, Abu Musad Al-Zarqawi. Apparently, Mr. Zarqawis exhortation to the Arab world for unity and sovereignty are too much for the United States and it's allies to bear, and they have made no secret of their desire to whisk Mr. Zarqawi away to an undisclosed location. In showing such determination in the face of naked aggression, President Assad has shown himself to be a role model of how to thwart Western imperialism".

I mean, come on... what are you guys recommending?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Yeah let's go and beat up.. er.. (looks around)... Botswana! B*stards - they've got it coming ~:mad:

---

Better yet, let's just sit around and talk about how unacceptable terrorism is! That'll show 'em!!!
:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

More importantly, it seems that people are trying to make their omlette without breaking any eggs. It's been frequently said that we must 1) remove the threat of terrorism while simultaneously 2) not create or foster an environment that might lead somebody who's not quite a terrorist to terrorism.

I personally do not know how to square agenda items 1 & 2. If somebody already has a pretty low opinion of the West, and think that everything we do is designed to keep the Arab world down, there's not much of a tip point to avoid there. Going in on targeted operations will almost certainly infuriate them as much as anything else. Why? Because you're still not respecting their sovereignty.

Let's say we got a tip that Zarqawi was holed up in Damascus, publicly issuing fatwahs for muslims to attack Western civilians around the globe. Let's say we pulled every carrot & stick we had to get Assad to turn him over, and Assad wasn't budging (you could make a strong argument that he couldn't, his people would never forgive him and his days would be numbered). Okay, now what? Do we send in a 'targeted assault team' to go get him? How's that going to play on Al Jazeera?

"Today, in a stunning slap in the face to Syrian national sovereignty, a task force of American SeALs and Brittish SAS forces stormed a downtown Damascus hotel, kidnapping popular author and Pan-Arab activist, Abu Musad Al-Zarqawi. In flagrant violation of international law, the United States is refusing to disclose Mr. Zarqawi's location or allow him consular vists and legal representation. Although President Assad has condemned the kidnapping, very little has been done to force the Americans to return Mr. Zarqawi to freedom".

Or do we talk tough? Do we keep issuing press statements condemning Syria? Big deal! I could even see a news clip for that:
"In a heroic stand against Western oppression, President Assad today refused to cooperate with efforts by the West to imprison popular author and Pan-Arab activist, Abu Musad Al-Zarqawi. Apparently, Mr. Zarqawis exhortation to the Arab world for unity and sovereignty are too much for the United States and it's allies to bear, and they have made no secret of their desire to whisk Mr. Zarqawi away to an undisclosed location. In showing such determination in the face of naked aggression, President Assad has shown himself to be a role model of how to thwart Western imperialism".

I mean, come on... what are you guys recommending?

---

Don,
I agree with your anaylsis, but my conclusions are different.
You cannot solve this problem with US troops only. Even though you have enough fire power, you will brake too much eggs. Not because you are doing it wrong, just because you are the US.
I know you do not want to hear this, but the only option is to include other nations. There should be an UN secret council that can decide pressure on these kind of government. Even the possibility to order immidiate military actions. And they must have access to permanent military forces. And they must have their own intelligence. And there have to be islamic nations in this council. It would be a big difference if soldiers from Egypt would attack Syria. Not for AQ, but for the rest of the world.
You may say that the UN is not able to act this way. You are right. But the US can change it. If the US wants to have an effective UN the rest of the world will follow. Esp. after 9/11, after all the other terror and after the Iraq war. But then the US has to give up some control.
I think it is more important to win the fight against terror than to control the war against terror.

Franconius,

The United States would work with an international body, if an international body would act.

Going back to my scenario, let's bring up some CNN footage to describe how your scenario would go, a couple of years into the future...

In what can only be described as a shocking rebuff today, French, Russian and Chinese diplomats at the UN Security Council blocked a vote to implement sanctions against Syria for giving sanctuary to known terrorist Abu Musad al Zarqawi. Mr. Zarqawi has been living in Damascus for the past 18 months, where he has publicly called for muslims around the globe to attack non-muslims of any sort, in any fashion. His incitements are frequently broadcast globally by Al Jazeera. At least two 4 terrorist attacks are believed to have been planned and ordered by Zarqawi since his arrival in Syria in October, 2005. Foregin minister Jack Straw and Secretary of State Condozleeza Rice produced volumes of evidence linking al Zarqawi to the Madrid train bombings, the London train bombings and numerous other more recent acts of terror. Foreign Minister Michel Barnier, speaking for the opposition had this to say "It's not that we don't believe Zarqawi is responsible, or that he's still operating in Damascus. We the civilized nations of the world just don't believe this so-called pressure on Assad will lead anywhere. We have only been trying to convince Syria for 18 months. Let's give it another 4 or 5 years, and if he still hasn't relinquisted Al Zarqawi, perhaps we can begin to discuss some sanctions. But for now, non".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Ever consider why London got bombed? They sure don't "Hate your freedom." And they aren't inherantly evil. Assuming it was muslim extremists who did this, London was bombed because of it's association with America, it's colonial history, and a general angst against western oppression. Those bombs were an act of war, and the declaration was that they won't stand for what they see as past oppression and support of current oppression.

Now, I don't condone the attacks, but don't be ignorant. You need to address the roots, not the leaves.

---

If that's the case, why did the attack the WTC in 1993? The Khobar towers were a miliitary target (granted, we weren't actually at war with them, but as I'm sure you'll claim military targets are ALWAYS valid, I'll just skip this one), so let's move to the Kenyan & Tanzanian embassies? How dare the US open embassies in other countries?

Or is it your point that no matter what we do, we just deserve it? Defend ourselves, we're asking for it. Don't defend ourselves, we're asking for it. Why don't you go move over there if you think so highly of their cause?

I love how you claim you're not condoning the attacks, but that's exactly what you were doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Franconius,

The United States would work with an international body, if an international body would act.

Going back to my scenario, let's bring up some CNN footage to describe how your scenario would go, a couple of years into the future...

In what can only be described as a shocking rebuff today, French, Russian and Chinese diplomats at the UN Security Council blocked a vote to implement sanctions against Syria for giving sanctuary to known terrorist Abu Musad al Zarqawi. Mr. Zarqawi has been living in Damascus for the past 18 months, where he has publicly called for muslims around the globe to attack non-muslims of any sort, in any fashion. His incitements are frequently broadcast globally by Al Jazeera. At least two 4 terrorist attacks are believed to have been planned and ordered by Zarqawi since his arrival in Syria in October, 2005. Foregin minister Jack Straw and Secretary of State Condozleeza Rice produced volumes of evidence linking al Zarqawi to the Madrid train bombings, the London train bombings and numerous other more recent acts of terror. Foreign Minister Michel Barnier, speaking for the opposition had this to say "It's not that we don't believe Zarqawi is responsible, or that he's still operating in Damascus. We the civilized nations of the world just don't believe this so-called pressure on Assad will lead anywhere. We have only been trying to convince Syria for 18 months. Let's give it another 4 or 5 years, and if he still hasn't relinquisted Al Zarqawi, perhaps we can begin to discuss some sanctions. But for now, non".

---

I don't think that France, Russia or China would actually veto your resolution, not if the evidence is sound enough. These people did not support the war in Iraq because the evidence was not sound.

Don,
The UN as we have it today is not perfect, not anything near. It was not built to fight terror. But the US can change it. They are the strongest nation and after 9/11 almost every nation will be glad to follow. The attack on London is another opportunity to gather the forces of the free world. In my oppinion the US has the historical chance to gather all free nations including Europe, Russia and some moslem nations under their lead.
However, the US itself would have to work with the other nations under the frame of the UN. This means that other nations are not just auxiliaries playing their role in according to the script written in the Pentagon.
So the question is not is the UN perfect or can it be renewed. The question is is the US willing and able to give the UN this chance.
P.S.: I'm not happy to say that, but Europe would be more than happy to follow an American leader, like we did in the Reagan area. It is not jealousy or anti-Americanism in Europe that finished the union of the western world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

but Europe would be more than happy to follow an American leader

---

er...

~:confused: ?

I'm not sure that Europe would want to simply follow an American leader

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcellus

I don't think that France, Russia or China would actually veto your resolution, not if the evidence is sound enough. These people did not support the war in Iraq because the evidence was not sound.

---

It wasn't just the resolution against the War in Iraq that they vetoed. When the United States & United Kingdom were trying to get resolutions passed to turn up the heat, DIPLOMATICALLY, on Saddam to allow Hans Blix and the crew back in, even though not allowing the inspectors in and of itself violated multiple resolutions, guess who was right there to say 'Non'.

Folks, you all seem to have forgotten that prior to the Iraq War, the Left was moaning about how an inhumane boycott against Iraq was crushing the Iraqi people, and it was time to end Oil for Food and reopen the whole Iraqi economy. The boycott was put in place to make Saddam meet his obligations under the treaties he signed to end hostilities. He never did comply so the boycott wasn't removed. Yet somehow that got spun as 'inhumane America trying to starve Iraqi women & children to death'.

Honestly, other than 'tough talk', what are you all prepared to do end terrorism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Typical ignorant spinning of my words. I'll keep talking then, but humour me by actually reading what I type this time.

Seeing these terrorist attacks for what they are requires you to step out of your usual prejudices and look at the situation objectively. They aren't attacking us for no reason. They attack Civilian targets because that is the most effective way to send the message. We did the same thing to Japan in World War II.

I don't condone these attacks because I'm an American, and an act of war against America is an act of war against me. We're already here and there's no backing out. But that does not mean I shroud myself in ignorance and assume we are riding the white horse.

---

If you want to assume that whenever there's a problem, America must be to blame, be my guest. I'm not going to sign on to that, and I'm not going to stop & gush and talk about what a patriotic American you are for having the guts to speak the truth. Because you're not. You won't even answer me about three unprovoked attacks on civilian targets. You just keep going on and on about how ' it must have been our fault'.

Finally, as repugnant I find Hiroshima & Nagasaki, those two bombs saved more Japanese civilian lives than anything else we could have possibly done. Since you seem enthralled with the terrible sins of America, let me give you a better example, Dresden. As far as I know, nobody with half a brain has ever defended our actions there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

The boycott was put in place to make Saddam meet his obligations under the treaties he signed to end hostilities. He never did comply so the boycott wasn't removed. Yet somehow that got spun as 'inhumane America trying to starve Iraqi women & children to death'.

---

During the boycott, Saddam continued to live in luxury whilst his people starved. The boycott didn't work, and did only lead to Iraqis starving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcellus

During the boycott, Saddam continued to live in luxury whilst his people starved. The boycott didn't work, and did only lead to Iraqis starving.

---

Why was that the case? Because the UN, charged with oversight of Oil for Food (and yes, American diplomats too) allowed this to happen.

And your answer is 'well, the program isn't working, let's just let Saddam do as he pleases'?

I think this is where you and I need to drop this if you're not going to be able to discuss this without having a coniption fit and resorting to swearing at me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

But, whatever.. if you want to believe the United States has achieved it's supremecy by being a bastion of freedom as pure as a thousand virgins, be my goddamned guest.

---

I never said any of that, and of course the US has it's fair share of dark deeds that it's done in the past. I offered you one of the worst we've ever done. That's nothing to do with being a superpower however. There's plenty of examples of 3rd world countries doing some pretty awful things too.

I do find it interesting that you never once attempted to justify the first WTC bombing, the embassy bombings or the 2nd WTC bombing. You don't even waste your time with handwaving. You just skip straight to the conclusion "an objective stanpoint shows them to be more than justified". Well, if you think you can do it without swearing, shouting or levelling personal attacks at me, be my guest. Make an objective assessment and show those actions to be more than justified.

Please let the past be past. There is no use in repeating the statements about Iraq war. Iraq war is a fact, terror is a fact. Let's talk what to do! Picking on the US or Europe or the Lefties or the Cons or even the French doesn't help anybody but AQ.

Would the US subordinate to an international organisation to fight the terror?

Don my friend.You are all the time talking how Europe betrayd USA by not joining the coalition against Saddam Hussein.If Europe is so against war on terror,why did European Nations backed up US attack against Taleban in Afghanistan.I think its only matter of proof.In Afghanistan everyone know there were terrorist training camps and a regime that supported terrorism against western world.In Iraq there was Saddam Husseins regime that was an terrible dictatorship and oppressed its own people terribly.
But if we are talking about war against extrem-muslim terrorist groups,then why choose Iraq.Saddam was and is lots of things,but he is now muslim extremist.
If US would have striked against Syria or Iran then i wouldnt had anything against that,because we all know that these countries harbour muslim terrorists.But if US goal is to strike down every dictatorship and anti democratic government in the world?Thats just unrealistic to me.I really dont support spreading democracy with force.I think that task is for those people themselves who live under a tyranny. :bow:

Do you find it odd that I left the Khobar towers or the USS Cole off of my list? That wasn't by accident. Terrorism, as opposed to guerilla warfare, specifically targets civilians with no military value. If you're arguing that these clowns over there are justified in these sorts of actions (Khobar, USS Cole), I might possibly agree with you. I wouldn't agree with their actions, and of course I would still hold that the US had the right and responsiblity to do something to stop them, but I wouldn't have the same sense of moral outrage that I do.

Targeting civilians is never acceptable. It is a horse of a different color in my eyes.

-The United States did not seek to prolong the Iran/Iraq war. We sought to help Iraq win, and aided them heavily.

-The creation of the State of Israel has not caused widespread misery in the Middle East. It has caused widespread misery among Palestinians, and I'm not going to divert the thread by an argument abou this, but let's not kid ourselves. Israel's existence does not cause suffering in Syria or Egypt.

However, while I'll grant you that people MAY view the above two issues as justification.... I again have to repeat nothing justifies targeting civilians. It's that way of thinking that breeds monstrosoties like Beslan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

Don my friend.You are all the time talking how Europe betrayd USA by not joining the coalition against Saddam Hussein.If Europe is so against war on terror,why did European Nations backed up US attack against Taleban in Afghanistan.I think its only matter of proof.In Afghanistan everyone know there were terrorist training camps and a regime that supported terrorism against western world.In Iraq there was Saddam Husseins regime that was an terrible dictatorship and oppressed its own people terribly.
But if we are talking about war against extrem-muslim terrorist groups,then why choose Iraq.Saddam was and is lots of things,but he is now muslim extremist.
If US would have striked against Syria or Iran then i wouldnt had anything against that,because we all know that these countries harbour muslim terrorists.But if US goal is to strike down every dictatorship and anti democratic government in the world?Thats just unrealistic to me.I really dont support spreading democracy with force.I think that task is for those people themselves who live under a tyranny. :bow:

---

I never said Europe betrayed the United States, and I don't believe it did. You all had every right to not support the War in Iraq, something I've said numerous times. I DID say the way France & Germany actively worked against us, in even trying to block economic restrictions against Iraq for non-compliance, and blackmailing Turkey into backing out of it, they showed that we are not allies. (By the way, to the Turks out there, didn't you just love the loyalty the French government showed you by blocking your EU entry anyway?)

And Kagemusha, you must be in a small minority of Europeans that actually supported action in Afghanistan. Yes, your governments did, and for that I am grateful. But you had widespread protests all over Europe against the actions in Afghanistan. There was even talk of dragging the US into the Hague to try us on war crimes. Everyone wants to pretend that now that hostilities have for the most part slowed down, they were all always in favor of it. I remember all the 'This is a war to exterminate Islam' and 'The Taliban is no worse than the Religious Right' chants going on at the time.

Yes we have our hippies here too. ~;)
I personally have very black and white opinion about terrorists.If someone attacks civilians with intention to do so.He or She is a warcriminal and should be killed on sight. And if someone is part of an organization that accepts attacks against civilians he or she should have the same treatment. :bow:

Why is it impossible to stop the discussion about the Iraq war history? Why is there so much mistrust - even in the org? The Iraq war did what the Soviet never could: it left the free world at odds with each other.
Bin Ladn can be satisfied with his success since 9/11. :wall:

Franconius,
It's impossible to discuss the War on Terror and the resentment Europe feels towards the US and vice-versa without making at least tangential references to Iraq. I agree with you that the Iraq War should not be the defining issue of our day from which we will never return, but let's face it, people tend to view the War on Terror and the War in Iraq in the same macro-set (whether they agree the two are linked, or they think of one as a deterrant to the other).

Calm down man, we'll get past all this. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

It wasn't just the resolution against the War in Iraq that they vetoed. When the United States & United Kingdom were trying to get resolutions passed to turn up the heat, DIPLOMATICALLY, on Saddam to allow Hans Blix and the crew back in, even though not allowing the inspectors in and of itself violated multiple resolutions, guess who was right there to say 'Non'.

---

France didn't say 'non'. Resolution 1441, which gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" was passed in the Security council unanimously. France and others vetoed a second resolution specifically authorising military action in Iraq. It is only after this resolution failed that the US/UK and others said that they could go to war based on the original resolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

And your answer is 'well, the program isn't working, let's just let Saddam do as he pleases'?

---

No, Saddam should not have been allowed to do as he pleases. But when it was clear that the Boycott was not affecting Saddam but was killing ordinary Iraqis, it should have been lifted and a new approach tried.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Why is it impossible to stop the discussion about the Iraq war history? Why is there so much mistrust - even in the org? The Iraq war did what the Soviet never could: it left the free world at odds with each other.
Bin Ladn can be satisfied with his success since 9/11. :wall:

---

the reason is that Iraq wars(1st and 2nd) caused all this outbreak. But any way you reffer to terrorists as if they are something we can touch and see. I think that many people or groups of people won big time from this terror story. Plus the greatest mistake is to give in to this freanzy. I walk in the streets of my country and i swear to you i dont think that there is even 1% of a terrorist strike. You can say im wrong that theyre everywhere etc. I think thats what they want us to believe. In the mean time Echelon type systems trace our calls, cameras invade our privacy and new style laws bent just alittle(as they say) our rights. Im not gonna do them this favour and turn myself to a maniac looking always over my shoulder, or go to some s..country and get killed fighting for the US right to stick their nose were they shouldnt under the missused poor word ''democracy''

By the way democracy(yes the original sense) means power of people. Do you feel any power lately?