The War on Terror

[Don Corleone]

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.

[Navaros]

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]

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]

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.

[Brenus]

“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…

“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.
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…

“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.

“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.

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]

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]

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]

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.