|
Ped
Interested In Your Brain
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
On Terrorism and the War Against it
#4379315 - 07/07/05 10:25 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
>> Will everyone believe the war on terrorism isn't just a conspiracy when European cities are bombed? (Taken from the London Bombings thread)
The war on terrorism isn't just a conspiracy. However, neither is it just a campaign for national security, or for freedom and democracy. I felt this discussion deserved it's own thread.
Many people speak in enormous extremes when discussing the idea of conspiracy behind terrorism and the war on terrorism. Some suggest incredible ideas, such as the idea that World Trade Centre was intentionally weakend with American-set bombs to create a fantastic display as part of an elaborate ruse used to justify interference into the affairs of other nations and in the private lives of American citizens.
Many others retort with extreme devotion to their nation and the words which come over the presidential pulpit, calling ludicrous those who should doubt the intent behind the actions of their democratically elected government. Some of these individuals call for the use of even greater force in the Middle East, to "root out" once and for all the terrorists who did such damage to America on September 11th and in other incidents.
A more balanced, objective perspective sees that the war on terrorism is a legitimate campaign with a legitimate cause which is used to veil the illegitimate and definitely unethical intrusion into other nation's affairs for the purpose of furthering the dominating agenda of America and it's closest allies. That is clear.
Even if the war on terrorism was not being used to distract the common person from the real objective behind actions taken in it's name, the war on terrorism would still be an entirely ridiculous campaign. Attacking and removing the leaders of terrorist organizations does not address the root cause of terrorism. So long as the root cause of terrorism is left unaddressed, other leaders will appear to replace those who are removed by American efforts. Without addressing it's root cause, terrorism will always exist.
The root cause of terrorism is the illegitamate and definitely unethical intrusion into other nation's affairs for the purpose of futhering the dominating agenda of America and it's closest allies. The war on terrorism has been, since it's first successful campaigns, contributive to terrorism's root cause. Regardless of whether or not it's true that the intent of America's coalition is compassionate, to install democracy in the middle east and loosen the grip of totalitarianism in the region, the war on terrorism only contributes to this and other related problems.
Terrorism itself has been a foolish endeavour. In attempting to dissuade impinging nations from continuing their interference in the political and cultural affairs of sovreign nations, these terrorist leaders have only succeeded in granting those impinging nations an easy excuse to ramp up their efforts. They have only invited more intrusion.
And so it will ping-pong back and forth like this until one group or the other finally decides to walk away from the table. Civilian casualties in Iraq will invite bus-bombs in London, which may invite more aggressive behaviour toward Iran or another Middle Eastern country, which may invite subway sabotage in New Jersey, on and on like this for an indeterminable period of time, all of it tangled up in an indecipherable myriad of lies and half truths designed to harness public opinion and use it like a sail, and all of it hinging on the pride, the selfishness, and the anger of a very small group of people on either side of the conflict.
-------------------- Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Ped]
#4379324 - 07/07/05 10:27 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I think it's effectiveness is a bit greater than you think?
Before the War on Terror was started: 9/11
After: Nothing as of now.
|
looner2
ABBA fan
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Ped]
#4379333 - 07/07/05 10:30 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ped said: A more balanced, objective perspective sees that the war on terrorism is a legitimate campaign with a legitimate cause which is used to veil the illegitimate and definitely unethical intrusion into other nation's affairs for the purpose of furthering the dominating agenda of America and it's closest allies. That is clear.
The objective of the war on terrorism is to kill terrorists and those who support terrorists. Everyone knows the realities of what our country does, intrusive or not, it doesn't take away from the fact that those who kill our citizens for any reason don't deserve life nor the waste of time understanding their purpose.
-------------------- I am in love with Acidic_Sloth
|
looner2
ABBA fan
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Ped]
#4379368 - 07/07/05 10:42 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ped said: Attacking and removing the leaders of terrorist organizations does not address the root cause of terrorism. So long as the root cause of terrorism is left unaddressed, other leaders will appear to replace those who are removed by American efforts. Without addressing it's root cause, terrorism will always exist.
The root cause of terrorism is the illegitamate and definitely unethical intrusion into other nation's affairs for the purpose of futhering the dominating agenda of America and it's closest allies. The war on terrorism has been, since it's first successful campaigns, contributive to terrorism's root cause. Regardless of whether or not it's true that the intent of America's coalition is compassionate, to install democracy in the middle east and loosen the grip of totalitarianism in the region, the war on terrorism only contributes to this and other related problems.
Terrorism itself has been a foolish endeavour. In attempting to dissuade impinging nations from continuing their interference in the political and cultural affairs of sovreign nations, these terrorist leaders have only succeeded in granting those impinging nations an easy excuse to ramp up their efforts. They have only invited more intrusion.
Oh goodness, it gets better!
Killing the terrorists is only thing we can do to them. To give them the benefit of understanding is accepting the killing of innocent people as a means of gaining political power. If you want to stay consistent, change your last paragraph from,
Terrorism itself has been a foolish endeavour.
to: Terrorism itself is very effective, and by listening to their demands and idealogy we can further succumb to their every whim in the name of peace!
-------------------- I am in love with Acidic_Sloth
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Ped]
#4379371 - 07/07/05 10:43 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
At some point, the Muslims will have nukes and sufficient amounts of chemical and biological weapons to give new meaning to the word TERROR....
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
downforpot
Stranger
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: lonestar2004]
#4379386 - 07/07/05 10:47 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
we'll just have to take nuke them before they nuke us. or we could let israel wipe out the whole middle east by themselves, they don't even need nukes. They could probably take over all the countries around them in 30 days flat.
-------------------- http://www.myspace.com/4th25 "And I don't care if he was handcuffed Then shot in his head All I know is dead bodies Can't fuck with me again"
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: downforpot]
#4379408 - 07/07/05 10:53 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
We should let them loose. It would be great. Even if they lost, it would get a problem out of our hair.
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian
Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 1 month
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: downforpot]
#4379431 - 07/07/05 11:01 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
downforpot said: we'll just have to take nuke them before they nuke us. or we could let israel wipe out the whole middle east by themselves, they don't even need nukes. They could probably take over all the countries around them in 30 days flat.
Just like we took over Iraq in 30 days flat -- how's that working out for us by the way?
-------------------- ?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.? -Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Ancalagon]
#4379437 - 07/07/05 11:03 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
we should never have fought a multicultural war (politically correct)
we should have turned the sand into glass.
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
Adamist
ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У
Registered: 11/23/01
Posts: 10,211
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Last seen: 9 years, 19 days
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: lonestar2004]
#4379451 - 07/07/05 11:07 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Heh, now you're thinking like the terrorists.
Who's side are you on, anyways, cowboy?
-------------------- { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } }
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Adamist]
#4379462 - 07/07/05 11:13 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Just pissed off today.
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
Adamist
ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У
Registered: 11/23/01
Posts: 10,211
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Last seen: 9 years, 19 days
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: lonestar2004]
#4379501 - 07/07/05 11:24 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Me too!
-------------------- { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } }
|
HarryFlashmanVC
That BeastlyFlashy
Registered: 05/24/05
Posts: 88
Loc: Suffolk, England
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: looner2]
#4379580 - 07/07/05 11:52 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
those who kill our citizens for any reason don't deserve life nor the waste of time understanding their purpose.
Know the enemy and know yourself
In a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself
Your chances of winning and losing are equal.
If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself
You are certain in every battle to be in peril.
Sun Tzu, The Art Of War
|
SoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst
Registered: 11/12/04
Posts: 1,690
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Ancalagon]
#4379583 - 07/07/05 11:54 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ancalagon said:
Quote:
downforpot said: we'll just have to take nuke them before they nuke us. or we could let israel wipe out the whole middle east by themselves, they don't even need nukes. They could probably take over all the countries around them in 30 days flat.
Just like we took over Iraq in 30 days flat -- how's that working out for us by the way?
Quite well, really. Do you honestly think that we've "failed" in Iraq? Compare our casuality count there with some other wars that we have definatly won (say, the big dub-dubs), and with wars that we've lost. Which does it look like more? We've taken over their country, trained troops, installed a new government. If people in the military die while this is happening, well, thats why they call it war instead of "massive slaughter". It's just how shit goes down.
-------------------- Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man
|
looner2
ABBA fan
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: HarryFlashmanVC]
#4379691 - 07/07/05 12:30 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
HarryFlashmanVC said:
Quote:
those who kill our citizens for any reason don't deserve life nor the waste of time understanding their purpose.
Know the enemy and know yourself
In a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself
Your chances of winning and losing are equal.
If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself
You are certain in every battle to be in peril.
Sun Tzu, The Art Of War
Cute response, but lets really analyze that. By "understanding" your enemies, he doesn't mean a metaphor for caring about their feelings and the struggles of being a poor muslim. Nope... Sun Tzu's art of war was speaking on conditions directly related to war, as in military logistics. By understanding the tactics, groups...etc..etc we can better kill them, but make no mistake... knowing why they do what they do is not up for debate when it comes to "understanding".
-------------------- I am in love with Acidic_Sloth
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: looner2]
#4379695 - 07/07/05 12:31 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: SoopaX]
#4379755 - 07/07/05 12:51 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
except we're still dying over there daily.
their infrastructure seems to be degenerating based on recent reports and there is no end in sight.
not necessarily victory in the pacific.
-------------------- All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian
Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 1 month
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: SoopaX]
#4379817 - 07/07/05 01:04 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Quite well, really. Do you honestly think that we've "failed" in Iraq?
Never said that. Not yet at least. Do YOU honestly think that we've "succeeded" in Iraq?
Quote:
Compare our casuality count there with some other wars that we have definatly won (say, the big dub-dubs), and with wars that we've lost. Which does it look like more?
Don't even know what to make of this. The nature of the wars is so different that using one as some measure of the other is laughable. Is any war to be gauged a success if it keeps its' casualty figures under WWII numbers? How convenient.
Quote:
We've taken over their country
We most certainly have.
Quote:
trained troops
Just a few more trained Iraqi troops and the tide will be turned, eh? We shall see.
Quote:
installed a new government.
Installed, ouch. Poor choice of words? Freudian slip?
Quote:
If people in the military die while this is happening, well, thats why they call it war instead of "massive slaughter". It's just how shit goes down.
People in the military are dying, Iraqi citizens are dying (to a much larger extent) -- I'm just not so sure that each pint of blood that's spilt brings us that much closer to the end game.
-------------------- ?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.? -Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'
|
SoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst
Registered: 11/12/04
Posts: 1,690
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: afoaf]
#4379858 - 07/07/05 01:11 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
afoaf said: except we're still dying over there daily.
their infrastructure seems to be degenerating based on recent reports and there is no end in sight.
not necessarily victory in the pacific.
So these statements wouldn't be applicable to, say, WWII? hardly.
War isn't a big instant victory, but we are winning. More doctors, more hospitals, more teachers, less tyrannical gas-loving dictators. Is Iraq better off? If so, we are winning.
-------------------- Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man
|
StrandedVoyager
The People's Champ
Registered: 12/09/04
Posts: 3,236
Loc: (202)-456-1414 Call Me
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: SoopaX]
#4379862 - 07/07/05 01:12 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
So... um... what war are we fighting again?
-------------------- Hi My god... it's full of stars...
|
SoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst
Registered: 11/12/04
Posts: 1,690
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Ancalagon]
#4379875 - 07/07/05 01:15 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ancalagon said:
Quote:
Quite well, really. Do you honestly think that we've "failed" in Iraq?
Never said that. Not yet at least. Do YOU honestly think that we've "succeeded" in Iraq? I think that we are winning, yes
Quote:
Compare our casuality count there with some other wars that we have definatly won (say, the big dub-dubs), and with wars that we've lost. Which does it look like more?
Don't even know what to make of this. The nature of the wars is so different that using one as some measure of the other is laughable. Is any war to be gauged a success if it keeps its' casualty figures under WWII numbers? How convenient. People die in wars. Compare how much we've gained with our ~1500 US dead and other wars. We've destroyed their regular army, we've ousted and captured their leader, we've destroyed terrorist strong points, we've got power going, we are buildnig hospitals, we are putting food on their tables. We lost a hundred times this in Vietnam and didn't really do shit.
Quote:
trained troops
Just a few more trained Iraqi troops and the tide will be turned, eh? We shall see. Thats what I'm thinking will happen, yes. The tide doesn't need to be "turned", it's going the right way. If you classify people dying in war as us losing, then we've lost every war we've ever taken part in, of course, so have the 'other guys'
Quote:
installed a new government.
Installed, ouch. Poor choice of words? Freudian slip? No, we used force to kill the last guys family, and we supported the new guy. Thats installing. Libertarianism doesn't work with heathen animals, we'll force freedom on them until they like it
Quote:
If people in the military die while this is happening, well, thats why they call it war instead of "massive slaughter". It's just how shit goes down.
People in the military are dying, Iraqi citizens are dying (to a much larger extent) -- I'm just not so sure that each pint of blood that's spilt brings us that much closer to the end game.
Would you say that we are winning or losing?
-------------------- Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man
|
HarryFlashmanVC
That BeastlyFlashy
Registered: 05/24/05
Posts: 88
Loc: Suffolk, England
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: looner2]
#4379899 - 07/07/05 01:21 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I don't know where I said anything about Quote:
caring about their feelings and the struggles of being a poor muslim
You said "understanding".
I just posted a quote about needing to understand in oreder to defeat your enemy. Nothing cute about it. Though your reply was quite titillating.
And something not being up for debate is nonsense. Whether we already have a fixed idea of an answer, what are you worried about discussion?
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Ped]
#4380384 - 07/07/05 03:22 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
put quite simply..the "war on terrorism" is a class war being waged by the rich against the poor...
-------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
Edited by Annapurna1 (07/07/05 03:28 PM)
|
exclusive58
illegal alien
Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 2,146
Last seen: 6 years, 11 days
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Ancalagon]
#4380784 - 07/07/05 05:24 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ancalagon said:
Quote:
Quite well, really. Do you honestly think that we've "failed" in Iraq?
Never said that. Not yet at least. Do YOU honestly think that we've "succeeded" in Iraq?
uhh, you guys, the war is officially over and declared as a great success (or so says Bush). Now its an occupation. I'd say an occupation is successful when order rules. But that's not the case, so the occupation is a failure so far.
So bush finished his little war with a big proud smile on his face, he wiped away all the immediate existing opposing forces, he got saddam, he got his oil, but one thing he never took the time to think about: post-war measures. "ehh, we'll think about that later, its not really important right now", so he thought.
--------------------
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: exclusive58]
#4381688 - 07/07/05 09:29 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
If anyone got oil, then why am I paying $2.30 a gallon?
Oh yeah, it's b/c we didn't get their oil.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Redstorm]
#4381751 - 07/07/05 09:50 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Redstorm said: If anyone got oil, then why am I paying $2.30 a gallon?
Oh yeah, it's b/c we didn't get their oil.
True, "we" didn't get their oil. Halliburton did. It doesn't benefit us. It benefits the oil companies.
--------------------
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Silversoul]
#4381761 - 07/07/05 09:54 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I just find it ridiculous to tie links between Bush and Haiilburton. Even the link between Cheney and Halliburton is getting looser and looser the more it is looked at. A multinational corporation was going to get the contracts there anyways. It just happens that Halliburton won the bids. It's a damn shame that we're not getting the benefits of this oil, but to blame Bush is silly.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Ped]
#4381794 - 07/07/05 10:08 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Ped writes:
Quote:
A more balanced, objective perspective sees that the war on terrorism is a legitimate campaign with a legitimate cause which is used to veil the illegitimate and definitely unethical intrusion into other nation's affairs for the purpose of furthering the dominating agenda of America and it's closest allies. That is clear.
Just because you characterize your speculation as "balanced" and "objective" doesn't make it accurate. And no, it is far from clear.
Quote:
Even if the war on terrorism was not being used to distract the common person from the real objective behind actions taken in it's name...
Assumes facts not in evidence -- i.e. that it is just a "distraction" and that there are ulterior motives.
Quote:
... the war on terrorism would still be an entirely ridiculous campaign. Attacking and removing the leaders of terrorist organizations does not address the root cause of terrorism. So long as the root cause of terrorism is left unaddressed, other leaders will appear to replace those who are removed by American efforts. Without addressing it's root cause, terrorism will always exist.
While this is of course correct, the same can be said of sexual predators and bank robbers and shoplifters and jaywalkers.
Quote:
The root cause of terrorism is the illegitamate and definitely unethical intrusion into other nation's affairs for the purpose of futhering the dominating agenda of America and it's closest allies.
Incorrect. The root cause of 95% of the terrorism going on in the world today is the desire of radical Islamists to establish a worldwide Islamic state.
Quote:
The war on terrorism has been, since it's first successful campaigns, contributive to terrorism's root cause.
Incorrect. See above.
Quote:
Regardless of whether or not it's true that the intent of America's coalition is compassionate, to install democracy in the middle east and loosen the grip of totalitarianism in the region, the war on terrorism only contributes to this and other related problems.
Well gee, Ped. It sure would be nice if there were always an option between a course of action that is "good" and a course of action that is "bad". Unfortunately in the real world sometimes one is presented with a situation where the only options are "bad" and "worse".
Quote:
Terrorism itself has been a foolish endeavour. In attempting to dissuade impinging nations from continuing their interference in the political and cultural affairs of sovreign nations, these terrorist leaders have only succeeded in granting those impinging nations an easy excuse to ramp up their efforts. They have only invited more intrusion.
No, terrorism has been a smart endeavor. It has (at the very least):
1) Cowed the moderate Muslims from taking any action (even to the point of just verbally condemning the 'splodeydopes) for fear they'll be beheaded
2) Changed the outcome of the election of at least one previously staunch ally in the fight (Spain)
Quote:
And so it will ping-pong back and forth like this until one group or the other finally decides to walk away from the table.
The mad mullahs will never walk away from the table. Ever. So we can only hope our side doesn't or we'll all be living under a medieval theocratic government.
Quote:
Civilian casualties in Iraq will invite bus-bombs in London, which may invite more aggressive behaviour toward Iran or another Middle Eastern country, which may invite subway sabotage in New Jersey, on and on like this for an indeterminable period of time, all of it tangled up in an indecipherable myriad of lies and half truths designed to harness public opinion and use it like a sail, and all of it hinging on the pride, the selfishness, and the anger of a very small group of people on either side of the conflict.
So your solution is for the good guys (that's the non-'splodeydopes, in case you're wondering) to roll over and take it up the ass? No offense, to you, Ped -- I'm sure you're a nice guy and all -- but I'm relieved you'll never be president.
Phred
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Silversoul]
#4381798 - 07/07/05 10:10 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
True, "we" didn't get their oil. Halliburton did.
Halliburton didn't get the oil either. Halliburton got the contract to rebuild stuff. They didn't get the rights to any oilfields.
Phred
--------------------
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Phred]
#4381810 - 07/07/05 10:12 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Did the Iraqi's keep the oil rights?
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Redstorm]
#4381812 - 07/07/05 10:14 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Yes.
Phred
--------------------
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 4 months, 25 days
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Phred]
#4381904 - 07/07/05 10:50 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Incorrect. The root cause of 95% of the terrorism going on in the world today is the desire of radical Islamists to establish a worldwide Islamic state.
Evidence please. I have read statements by select muslims that believe that is a noble goal, but I don't know where you got your numbers from. Al Qaeda itself states that its motivations are due to american troops in Saudi Arabia, and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. While they evidently believe that terrorism would have some effect on these issues, I have yet to see any evidence that most terrorists believe terrorism will help create an entirely muslim world, or that they feel they should use terrorism for this goal.
It seems to me that this is speculation on your part, and not fact. (Unless, of course, you have the results of some sort of terrorist census.)
So your solution is for the good guys (that's the non-'splodeydopes, in case you're wondering) to roll over and take it up the ass? No offense, to you, Ped -- I'm sure you're a nice guy and all -- but I'm relieved you'll never be president.
I'm not sure that's what he was proposing.
-------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Phluck]
#4381959 - 07/07/05 11:08 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Phluck writes:
Quote:
I have read statements by select muslims that believe that is a noble goal, but I don't know where you got your numbers from.
The select Islamists to whom you refer are the "Founding Fathers" of the jihadist movement. I've covered this before, with plenty of links, back when Zahid was doing his Muslim martyr schtick. Unfortunately, the threads in question have now been archived hence cannot be bumped. Search the PA&L archives for "al Qutb" if you feel like it. I'm not going to bother at this hour of the night.
As Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, neatly put it, "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." The first choice of Islamists is to kill Americans and Jews, or best of all an American Jew?like Daniel Pearl, the late Wall Street Journal?reporter. Failing that, they're happy to kill Australians, Britons, Canadians, Swedes, Germans, as they did in Bali. We are all infidels.
Quote:
Al Qaeda itself states that its motivations are due to american troops in Saudi Arabia, and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Almost correct. It was Osama bin Laden who said that, and his first statement taking credit for the 9/11 attacks made no mention of Israel at all. He said it was because the Infidel had defiled the holy soil of the Arabian Peninsula by putting their feet on it. It wasn't till later statements months down the road that he decided to drag Israel into it.
Quote:
It seems to me that this is speculation on your part, and not fact.
When the "spiritual leaders" of the Religion of Peace say the same thing over and over and over again and preach to their followers that it is their sacred duty to kill the infidel wherever they may be found, it's no longer speculation to take them at their word.
Don't forget these nutbars kill other Muslims as well -- for not being devout enough. That has nothing to do with Joooos or the Great Satan.
Phred
--------------------
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Phred]
#4381964 - 07/07/05 11:08 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Incorrect. The root cause of 95% of the terrorism going on in the world today is the desire of radical Islamists to establish a worldwide Islamic state.
The Crusades were started by which religious group?
Would you care to wager against me that there will be no Al Queda attacks on more neutral countries like Canada or Switzerland?
-------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Swami]
#4381996 - 07/07/05 11:15 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Swami writes:
Quote:
The Crusades were started by which religious group?
What part of
"The root cause of 95% of the terrorism going on in the world today is the desire of radical Islamists to establish a worldwide Islamic state."
are you having difficulty grasping? You do know the Crusades ended around seven centuries ago.
Phred
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Swami]
#4382012 - 07/07/05 11:19 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Swami writes:
Quote:
Would you care to wager against me that there will be no Al Queda attacks on more neutral countries like Canada or Switzerland?
Seeing as how Osama and his henchmen have issued public threats to attack Canada and Denmark and Japan and a bunch of others, I wouldn't rule out such an attack, no. But wishing to attack a place and actually managing to carry it out are two different things. Look how many plots in England were foiled before this one succeeded.
Besides, in the case of some countries, threats are enough to cow them into caving. Osama may be crazy but he ain't stupid.
Phred
--------------------
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Swami]
#4382018 - 07/07/05 11:20 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Canada Called a Terror Target ['Genuine Threat' from al-Qaeda] CanWest News Service ^ | STEWART BELL
A new Canadian intelligence report says terrorists might attack Canada in retaliation for the arrests of suspected Al-Qa'ida associates who are being deported for reasons of national security.
In the report, titled Al-Qa'ida: Potential Threats to North American Targets, the federal government's threat analysis unit said Canada's efforts to deport Al-Qa'ida suspects could trigger a violent response.
"Canadian agencies have aggressively pursued removal proceedings against inadmissible classes of foreign nationals associated with Al-Qa'ida constituents, which may also provide extremists with an impetus to attack Canadian interests."
The report by the Integrated National Security Assessment Centre (INSAC) was labelled Restricted Distribution because of its "sensitive nature," but a copy was disclosed to the National Post under the Access to Information Act.
It is the latest signal to emerge from Ottawa that there might be a genuine Al-Qa'ida threat to Canada, even if many Canadians do not consider their country to be in the sights of the global jihadist terror network.
Canadian authorities have captured several alleged Al-Qa'ida associates in Ontario and Quebec, notably Egyptians Mahmoud Jaballah and Mohamed Mahjoub, Adil Charkaoui of Morocco and Algerian Mohammed Harkat.
Several others, such as Algerians Samir Air Mohamed of Vancouver and Abdellah Ouzghar of Hamilton, were arrested for extradition to stand trial in the United States and France respectively.
Last March, Canadian police arrested an Ottawa computer expert on charges he was part of a radical cell that was plotting a bombing in Britain. He is alleged to have used his computer skills to help build a bomb using ammonium nitrate.
The report notes that Al-Qa'ida ranked Canada as "the fifth most important Christian country to be targeted, following the U.S., the U.K., Spain and Australia." Of those, Canada is the only one to not have suffered an attack.
Canadian security agencies say they have found indicators terrorists might be in the planning stages of an attack, including incidents involving the videotaping of possible targets in Toronto. Last year, Pakistani authorities found a list of Canadian targets in the pocket of a captured Al-Qa'ida operative.
Although the Liberals opposed the invasion of Iraq, Al-Qa'ida considers Canada a legitimate target because of the Canadian troop presence in Afghanistan and Ottawa's participation in the U.S.-led war on terror.
One of Canada's main counterterrorism tools is a section of the immigration law that allows the government to deport non-Canadians suspected of involvement in terrorist groups.
INSAC is based at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and is composed of federal security agencies including CSIS, RCMP, national defence, foreign affairs and immigration.
would you care to wager if they blame bush.
And after a terrorist attack, how long would victims have to wait to get medical care????????????????
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Phred]
#4382029 - 07/07/05 11:22 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
What part of X are you having difficulty grasping?
So attacking my intellect is a mod's perogative and adds to the discussion?
How far back is it OK to go for grievances? 1 year? 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? Please show me the statute of limitations on cultural hatred?
We should have no anger over 9/11 because that is NOT TODAY and is old news.
-------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Swami]
#4382041 - 07/07/05 11:25 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
They whooped us anyways in the Crusades. They don't really have much to cry about.
|
Prosgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?
Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 18 years, 2 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Phred]
#4382045 - 07/07/05 11:26 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: While this is of course correct, the same can be said of sexual predators and bank robbers and shoplifters and jaywalkers.
Terrorist acts are political in nature. They are acts of the politically impotent against the powerful. It is not the same thing.
Quote:
Incorrect. The root cause of 95% of the terrorism going on in the world today is the desire of radical Islamists to establish a worldwide Islamic state.
Why do you ignore the published statements of Bin Laden, Ramzi Yousef and others as to why they have a beef with the U.S.? This is willful ignorance on your part. Muslim terrorist acts against the U.S. ARE directly related to U.S. foreign policy. The radical Islamists gain sympathy and converts BECAUSE OF U.S. foreign policy. The radical Islamic movement is nurtured and grows in response to U.S. actions. There will always be religious crackpots and extremists from many faiths, some are possessed of violent tendencies and creeds. It is foolish to provide impetus to such movements by a short-sighted, ham-handed and interventionist foreign policy. As long as people refuse to admit this, they will fail to address the problem in a constructive manner and will continue the cycle which makes the innocent targets of the politically desperate. The only other viable alternative is to commit genocide against Muslims, take all their oil and give all their remaining land to the Jews or whomever may curry the favor of the conquerors. Perhaps this is your preferred method?
-------------------- Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes. You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way. - Tom Willhite Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Swami]
#4382052 - 07/07/05 11:28 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Standard Swami dodge. When pwned whine about "attacks".
I would say that going back seven centuries is stretching it. Apparently you and the 'splodeydopes feel otherwise. Meh. It takes all kinds to make a world.
--------------------
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 11 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Redstorm]
#4382078 - 07/07/05 11:35 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
wasn't Switzerland involved in the crusades?
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Prosgeopax]
#4382080 - 07/07/05 11:36 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
What I have learned about terror from this board and Fox News:
Not terrorist acts: dropping nukes, napalm, planting mines, artillery shelling, laser-guided missiles, high-altitude bombing and basically any high-ticket ordinance is "good" and just.
Terrorist acts: using cheap homemade bombs.
Substitute the word killing for terror and you get "The War on Killing" and the way to show your disdain for the immorality of killing is to kill.
-------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Swami]
#4382090 - 07/07/05 11:38 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
terrorism: deliberately attacking civilian targets
C'mon, I know the Great Swami is smarter than that.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Prosgeopax]
#4382094 - 07/07/05 11:39 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Why do you ignore the published statements of Bin Laden, Ramzi Yousef and others as to why they have a beef with the U.S.?
Why do you ignore the published statements of al Qutb and Hussein Massawi and others as to why the infidels are to be killed wherever they are found? You are of course aware that these nutbars kill other Muslims as well -- for not being sufficiently devout. What has that got to do with the US's support of Israel?
While it can be argued that ham-handed actions by some Western governments add to the seething against infidels, it is not the root cause of the seething. The root cause is the unavoidable clash betwen a medieval theocratic mindset and the godless hedonism and freedom displayed in democracies.
Quote:
The only other viable alternative is to commit genocide against Muslims...
There's no need to kill 'em all. But until the moderate Muslims do a much more effective job of countering the doctrine spread by their more fanatical co-religionists, the 'splodeydope martyrs will continue doing their thing. Perhaps one day those moderate Muslims will decide to get serious about saving Islam. We can only hope.
Phred
--------------------
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 4 months, 25 days
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Phred]
#4382140 - 07/07/05 11:51 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Again, where do you get your numbers from? I'm looking through the archives, and yes, I see some posts by you about Al Qutb, but no evidence that the majority of terrorists follow his beliefs.
Where did you get the 95% from?
-------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Redstorm]
#4382144 - 07/07/05 11:52 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
terrorism: deliberately attacking civilian targets
Like Hiroshima and Berlin? Like the many thousands of non-combatants still dying from American mines? Khaddafi's family was a real military target, no?
Non-deliberate killing of civilians is OK? "Oops, we thought you guys were terrorists - sorry!" "Oh wait, it was just a commercial airliner we shot down. That doesn't count as terror (except to the victim's families!) How man tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians? Thought we were going there to "protect" them?
-------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Phred]
#4382171 - 07/07/05 11:57 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
But until the moderate Muslims do a much more effective job of countering the doctrine spread by their more fanatical co-religionists
Explain how you and others of like mind are doing an effective job of countering the doctrine spread by Christian religious fanatics like Bush.
-------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Swami]
#4382173 - 07/07/05 11:57 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Killing of civilians is never ok, but to lump it together with terrorism is absurd.
Myself, I am sick of liberals who are so damn sympathetic to the terrorists. Would you be so hugg-kissy to them if you had someone who died in the attack on 9/11? I doubt it.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Phluck]
#4382175 - 07/07/05 11:57 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Sigh.
So it's 92%. Or 89%. Or 96%.
The point is that by far the greatest number of terrorists operating in the world today are followers of the Islamic nutbars. Yes, there are still IRA guys around, and Basque terrorists and Oklahoma City types.
There are also the Palestinians, who may stop blowing folks up once they've killed all the Israelis.
Phred
--------------------
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Swami]
#4382179 - 07/07/05 11:59 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Swami said: But until the moderate Muslims do a much more effective job of countering the doctrine spread by their more fanatical co-religionists
Explain how you and others of like mind are doing an effective job of countering the doctrine spread by Christian religious fanatics like Bush.
I think the job has been satisfactory. I don't know many abortion clinic bombers that are still at-large.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Swami]
#4382183 - 07/08/05 12:00 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Swami writes:
Quote:
Like Hiroshima and Berlin? Like the many thousands of non-combatants still dying from American mines? Khaddafi's family was a real military target, no?
Non-deliberate killing of civilians is OK? "Oops, we thought you guys were terrorists - sorry!" "Oh wait, it was just a commercial airliner we shot down. That doesn't count as terror (except to the victim's families!) How man tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians? Thought we were going there to "protect" them?
Seems you don't accept the commonly-understood definition of "terrorism", Swami.
Just so we're all on the same page for future discussions, perhaps you'd be kind enough to supply your own definition.
Phred
--------------------
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Phred]
#4382190 - 07/08/05 12:02 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
"Terrorism is a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions. One definition means a violent action targetting civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal. Under the second definition, the targets of terrorist acts can be anyone, including civilians, government officials, military personnel, or people serving the interests of governments."
That's the definition I subscribe to.
|
Prosgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?
Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 18 years, 2 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Phred]
#4382225 - 07/08/05 12:13 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: Why do you ignore the published statements of al Qutb and Hussein Massawi and others as to why the infidels are to be killed wherever they are found?
I don't. I also don't pull numbers out of my ass (95%) to make a point.
Quote:
until the moderate Muslims do a much more effective job of countering the doctrine spread by their more fanatical co-religionists
The point of my previous post was to point out the fact the U.S. actions continue to radicalize Muslims and make the world situation worse. Apparently, you think it's wise to push more Muslims to more radical views by continuing an interventionist foreign policy. This is what you continue to advocate on these boards in your refusal to recognize THE WHOLE PICTURE and your continued support of intervention.
This may confuse you, but here are some actual quotes which reveal a more complex view of the situation than you seem willing to admit to..
Quote:
Osama Bin Laden said in 1998: The American government, we think, is an agent that represents the Israel inside America. If we look at sensitive departments in the present government like the defense department or the state department, or sensitive security departments like the CIA and others, we find that Jews have the first word in the American government, which is how they use America to carry out their plans in the world and especially the Muslim world.
The presence of Americans in the Holy Land supports the Jews and gives them a safe back. The American government, in a time where there are millions of Americans living on the street and those living below the standard of living and below the poverty line, we find the American government turning toward helping Israel in occupying our land and building settlements in the Holy Land. The American government is throwing away the lives of Americans in Saudi Arabia for the interests of the Jews. The Jews are a people who Allah cited in his holy book the Koran as those who attacked prophets with lies and killings, and attacked Mary and accused her of a great sin. They are a people who killed Allah's prophets - would they not kill, rape and steal from humans?
They believe that all humans are created for their use, and found that the Americans are the best-created beings for that use. The American Government is driving America to destruction and those same ones have no doubts about America being a superpower in the next decade.
So, we tell the American as a people, and we tell the mothers of soldiers, and American mothers in general, if they value their lives and those of their children, find a nationalistic government that will look after their interests and not the interest of the Jews.
Quote:
Ramzi Ahmed Yousef said in 1998: You keep talking also about collective punishment and killing innocent people to force governments to change their policies; you call this terrorism when someone would kill innocent people or civilians in order to force the government to change its policies. Well, when you were the first one who invented this terrorism.
You were the first one who killed innocent people, and you are the first one who introduced this type of terrorism to the history of mankind when you dropped an atomic bomb which killed tens of thousands of women and children in Japan and when you killed over a hundred thousand people, most of them civilians, in Tokyo with fire bombings. You killed them by burning them to death. And you killed civilians in Vietnam with chemicals as with the so- called Orange agent. You killed civilians and innocent people, not soldiers, innocent people every single war you went. You went to wars more than any other country in this century, and then you have the nerve to talk about killing innocent people.
And now you have invented new ways to kill innocent people. You have so- called economic embargo which kills nobody other than children and elderly people, and which other than Iraq you have been placing the economic embargo on Cuba and other countries for over 35 years...
The government in its summations and opening said that I was a terrorist. Yes, I am a terrorist and I am proud of it. And I support terrorism so long as it was against the United States Government and against Israel, because you are more than terrorists; you are the one who invented terrorism and using it every day. You are butchers, liars and hypocrites.
Quote:
World Islamic Front Statement (excerpt) 23 February 1998
Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Egyptian Islamic Group Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh: Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.
The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.
No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone: First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.
Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.
Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula. All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."
On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah."
-------------------- Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes. You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way. - Tom Willhite Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Redstorm]
#4382302 - 07/08/05 12:35 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Myself, I am sick of liberals who are so damn sympathetic to the terrorists. Would you be so hugg-kissy to them if you had someone who died in the attack on 9/11? I doubt it.
Reading comprehension seems to be a widespread disease here. As per usual, you will be unable to quote a line wherein I support terrorism in any form.
-------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Swami]
#4382337 - 07/08/05 12:45 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
You must have the same problem. Sympathizing with isn't the same thing as supporting, though both acts are despicable in my opinion.
|
Prosgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?
Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 18 years, 2 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Prosgeopax]
#4382378 - 07/08/05 12:56 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Even a DOD report backs me up...
Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication
September 2004
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense For Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Washington, D.C. 20301-3140
(Here's a link to the .pdf file)
Quote:
1.2 The New Strategic Communication Environment Anti-American attitudes. Opinion surveys conducted by Zogby International, the Pew Research Center, Gallup (CNN/USA Today), and the Department of State (INR) reveal widespread animosity toward the United States and its policies. A year and a half after going to war in Iraq, Arab/Muslim anger has intensified. Data from Zogby International in July 2004, for example, show that the U.S. is viewed unfavorably by overwhelming majorities in Egypt (98 percent), Saudi Arabia (94 percent), Morocco (88 percent), and Jordan (78 percent). The war has increased mistrust of America in Europe, weakened support for the war on terrorism, and undermined U.S. credibility worldwide. Media commentary is consistent with polling data. In a State Department (INR) survey of editorials and op-eds in 72 countries, 82.5 % of commentaries were negative, 17.5% positive.
Negative attitudes and the conditions that create them are the underlying sources of threats to America?s national security and reduced ability to leverage diplomatic opportunities. Terrorism, thin coalitions, harmful effects on business, restrictions on travel, declines in cross border tourism and education flows, and damaging consequences for other elements of U.S. soft power are tactical manifestations of a pervasive atmosphere of hostility.
Although many observers correlate anti-Americanism with deficiencies in U.S. public diplomacy (its content, tone, and competence), the effectiveness of the means used to influence public opinion is only one metric. Policies, conflicts of interest, cultural differences, memories, time, dependence on mediated information, and other factors shape perceptions and limit the effectiveness of strategic communication.
Quote:
There is consensus in these reports that U.S. public diplomacy is in crisis. Missing are strong leadership, strategic direction, adequate coordination, sufficient resources, and a culture of measurement and evaluation. America?s image problem, many suggest, is linked to perceptions of the United States as arrogant, hypocritical, and self-indulgent.
Quote:
Terrorism as a national security frame. The events of September 11, 2001 were a catalyst in creating a new way to think about national security. The Global War on Terrorism replaced the Cold War as a national security meta narrative. Governments, media, and publics use the terrorism frame for cognitive, evaluative, and communication purposes. For political leaders, it is a way to link disparate events; identify priorities, friends, enemies, victims, and blame; and shape simple coherent messages. For journalists and news consumers the terrorism frame conflates and appears to make sense of diverse national security stories ? Al Qaeda, Jihadists, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Iran, Chechnya, Indonesia, Kashmir, the Philippines, Kenya, Spain.
Frames simplify and help to communicate complex events. But like the Cold War frame, the terrorism frame marginalizes other significant issues and problems: failing states, non-proliferation, HIV/AIDS pandemic, economic globalization, transnational threats other than terrorism, and global warming. Often the terrorism frame directs attention to tactics not strategy. The focus is more on capturing and killing terrorists than attitudinal, political, and economic forces that are the underlying source of threats and opportunities in national security.
Quote:
... this is no Cold War. We call it a war on terrorism; but Muslims in contrast see a history-shaking movement of Islamic restoration. This is not simply a religious revival, however, but also a renewal of the Muslim World itself. And it has taken form through many variant movements, both moderate and militant, with many millions of adherents; of which radical fighters are only a small part. Moreover, these movements for restoration also represent, in their variant visions, the reality of multiple identities within Islam.
If there is one overarching goal they share, it is the overthrow of what Islamists call the ?apostate? regimes: the tyrannies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, and the Gulf states. They are the main target of the broader Islamist movement, as well as the actual fighter groups. The United States finds itself in the strategically awkward ? and potentially dangerous ? situation of being the longstanding prop and alliance partner of these authoritarian regimes. Without the U.S. these regimes could not survive. Thus the U.S. has strongly taken sides in a desperate struggle that is both broadly cast for all Muslims and country-specific.
This is the larger strategic context, and it is acutely uncomfortable: U.S. policies and actions are increasingly seen by the overwhelming majority of Muslims as a threat to the survival of Islam itself. Three recent polls of Muslims show an overwhelming conviction that the U.S. seeks to ?dominate? and ?weaken? the Muslim World. Not only is every American initiative and commitment in the Muslim World enmeshed in the larger dynamic of intra-Islamic hostilities ? but Americans have inserted themselves into this intra-Islamic struggle in ways that have made us an enemy to most Muslims.
Quote:
2.3 What is the Problem? Who Are We Dealing With? The information campaign ? or as some still would have it, ?the war of ideas,? or the struggle for ?hearts and minds? ? is important to every war effort. In this war it is an essential objective, because the larger goals of U.S. strategy depend on separating the vast majority of non-violent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists. But American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.
American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies. - Muslims do not ?hate our freedom,? but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi
Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.
- Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that ?freedom is the future of the Middle East? is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World ? but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.
- Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self determination.
- Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack ? to broad public support.
- What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of ?terrorist? groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.
- Finally, Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic ? namely, that the war is all about us. As the Muslims see it, everything about the war is ? for Americans ? really no more than an extension of American domestic politics and its great game. This perception is of course necessarily heightened by election-year atmospherics, but nonetheless sustains their impression that when Americans talk to Muslims they are really just talking to themselves.
Thus the critical problem in American public diplomacy directed toward the Muslim World is not one of ?dissemination of information,? or even one of crafting and delivering the ?right? message. Rather, it is a fundamental problem of credibility. Simply, there is none ? the United States today is without a working channel of communication to the world of Muslims and of Islam. Inevitably therefore, whatever Americans do and say only serves the party that has both the message and the ?loud and clear? channel: the enemy.
-------------------- Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes. You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way. - Tom Willhite Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.
Edited by Prosgeopax (07/08/05 01:09 AM)
|
moog
Stranger
Registered: 02/15/05
Posts: 1,296
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Redstorm]
#4382390 - 07/08/05 01:01 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
A couple things to think about...
From wordorigins.org
Quote:
Terrorism is not simply a modern phenomenon. Rather, the word, along with terrorist, first appears in English in 1795 in reference to the Jacobins of France. They ruled France in what was called the Reign of Terror from 1793-94. By 1798, the term was being applied generally to anyone who attempted to achieve political goals through violence and intimidation.
The word is thought to have been coined by the Jacobins themselves, but the French terrorisme is not recorded until 1798. If the Jacobins did coin it, they are the only ones to have used it self-referentially. The term has always had negative connotations since then.
From MSN Encarta
Quote:
The word terrorism was first used in France to describe a new system of government adopted during the French Revolution (1789-1799). The regime de la terreur (Reign of Terror) was intended to promote democracy and popular rule by ridding the revolution of its enemies and thereby purifying it. However, the oppression and violent excesses of the terreur transformed it into a feared instrument of the state. From that time on, terrorism has had a decidedly negative connotation. The word, however, did not gain wider popularity until the late 19th century when it was adopted by a group of Russian revolutionaries to describe their violent struggle against tsarist rule. Terrorism then assumed the more familiar antigovernment associations it has today.
Terrorism is by nature political because it involves the acquisition and use of power for the purpose of forcing others to submit, or agree, to terrorist demands. A terrorist attack, by generating publicity and focusing attention on the organization behind the attack, is designed to create this power. It also fosters an environment of fear and intimidation that the terrorists can manipulate. [sound familiar?] As a result, terrorism?s success is best measured by its ability to attract attention to the terrorists and their cause and by the psychological impact it exerts over a nation and its citizenry. It differs in this respect from conventional warfare, where success is measured by the amount of military assets destroyed, the amount of territory seized, and the number of enemy dead.
Essentially, a 'war' against terrorism could only be won by ignoring the acts of terrorism -- media blackouts and covering up the events -- because the goal of terrorism is to generate a public reaction from it. George Bush's 'war on terrorism' is actually a 'war on terrorists.' It may seem like there's no difference, but there's a huge difference.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: moog]
#4382561 - 07/08/05 01:41 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
moog writes:
Quote:
Essentially, a 'war' against terrorism could only be won by ignoring the acts of terrorism -- media blackouts and covering up the events -- because the goal of terrorism is to generate a public reaction from it.
Exactly right. You've nailed it as squarely as any nail can be hit. Unfortunately, in today's wired world, blackouts and coverups are not an option.
Quote:
George Bush's 'war on terrorism' is actually a 'war on terrorists.' It may seem like there's no difference, but there's a huge difference.
The same point I have made here many times in the past. You are perfectly correct that neither the phrase "War on terror" nor "War on terrorism" makes sense linguistically. "War on terrorists" does of course make sense and is in fact an accurate description of what is going on.
Phred
--------------------
|
Los_Pepes
Stranger
Registered: 06/26/05
Posts: 731
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Ped]
#4384504 - 07/08/05 04:15 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
From: The Types of Jihad http://www.ummah.net.pk/harkat/jihad/t-jihad.htm (site is offline, but here's the google-cache of the article) There are two types of Jihad against the Kuffar
1- Offensive Jihad 2- Defensive Jihad
1- Offensive Jihad is when the Muslims launch an offensive attack. If this attack is on the Kuffar who have previously received the message of Islam, then to call them towards Islam before commencement of the attack is considered preferable.
However, if the message of Islam has not reached them, then the Kuffar will be invited towards Islam. If they reject this true faith, then they will have to pay Jizyah (Kufr tax). If they refuse to submit to the payment of Jizyah then the Muslims are to fight against them. With this type of Jihad the Kuffar who plot against the Muslims are repelled and their hearts are filled with fear, so that they do not succeed in their plans.
The offensive Jihad is Fardh Kifayah, the purpose of which is to ensure the Kuffar remain terrorised and away from mischief, thereby, allowing the message of Islam to be conveyed without any obstructions.
If one group of Muslims fulfil this obligation then it will be sufficient on behalf of all Muslims, but if there are no Muslims fulfilling this obligation then everyone is considered sinful.
It is stated in Fatawa Shami: It is required of the Imam (leader) of the Muslims to dispatch the army routinely once or twice a year towards the Kufr countries. It is also the duty of the Muslim public to assist the Imam in this noble cause. If the Imam does not send an army, then he will considered sinful.
The majority of Jihad undertaken at the time of our Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) was within the category of offensive Jihad.
The Quran has called upon the Muslims to undertake the offensive Jihad and when this obligation is satisfactorily fulfilled there would be no apparent need for the defensive Jihad.
When Muslims neglect this important obligation then they are subjected to the defensive Jihad and this has become, with regret, widely common in our time.
From: Jihaad against the kuffar is of two types http://www.islamicawakening.com/Sahar/Ji...202000%20.phtml by Dr. Abdullah Azzaam: Offensive Jihaad (where the enemy is attacked in his own territory).
Where the Kuffar are not gathering to fight the Muslims. The fighting becomes Fard Kifaya with the minimum requirement of appointing believers to guard borders, and the sending of an army at least once a year to terrorize the enemies of Allah. It is a duty of upon the Imam to assemble and send out an army unit into the land of war once or twice every year. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the Muslim population to assist him, and if he does not send an army he is in sin.
And the Ulama have mentioned that this type of jihaad is for maintaining the payment of Jizya. The scholars of the principles of religion have also said: "Jihaad is Da'wah with a force, and is obligatory to perform with all available capabilities, until there remains only Muslims or people who submit to Islam."
http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/jihad.html
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Prosgeopax]
#4384608 - 07/08/05 04:45 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
You raise some points that deserve a reasoned response. Unfortunately I am at the moment trying to figure out a way to keep my computer from losing its power for a split second every fifteen minutes or so (and hence shutting itself down completely) so I can do a thorough search of my bookmarks and provide you credible sources that support my position that this is less a political problem than a religious/philosophical problem.
I make this post to inform you I am not dropping the matter, but I may not get back to you today. I can handle short replies, but I'm damned if I'm going to spend ten minutes typing and copying and pasting and linking only to have my 'puter kack out between saves and then do it all over again.
For the moment I will just repeat that the issue I'm addressing here is the root cause of Islamist terrorism. I will say again that it can be argued ham-handed foreign policy can exacerbate things. Only a fool would dismiss that possibility out of hand. But from the beginning of this thread I have addressed myself to exposing the root cause of the philosophical mindset that holds it's not just acceptable but is indeed required to indiscriminately murder infidel women and babies wherever they may be found. More, that it is not just acceptable but required to murder apostates of Islam and even non-apostates who are deemed insufficiently devout.
As a preview of where I will be going, I will give again the name Sayyid Qutb. you may want to do some research on this fellow while waiting for my eventual return. Up to you.
Phred
--------------------
|
Los_Pepes
Stranger
Registered: 06/26/05
Posts: 731
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Phred]
#4384662 - 07/08/05 05:14 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: You raise some points that deserve a reasoned response. Unfortunately I am at the moment trying to figure out a way to keep my computer from losing its power for a split second every fifteen minutes or so (and hence shutting itself down completely) so I can do a thorough search of my bookmarks and provide you credible sources that support my position that this is less a political problem than a religious/philosophical problem.
I make this post to inform you I am not dropping the matter, but I may not get back to you today. I can handle short replies, but I'm damned if I'm going to spend ten minutes typing and copying and pasting and linking only to have my 'puter kack out between saves and then do it all over again.
For the moment I will just repeat that the issue I'm addressing here is the root cause of Islamist terrorism. I will say again that it can be argued ham-handed foreign policy can exacerbate things. Only a fool would dismiss that possibility out of hand. But from the beginning of this thread I have addressed myself to exposing the root cause of the philosophical mindset that holds it's not just acceptable but is indeed required to indiscriminately murder infidel women and babies wherever they may be found. More, that it is not just acceptable but required to murder apostates of Islam and even non-apostates who are deemed insufficiently devout.
As a preview of where I will be going, I will give again the name Sayyid Qutb. you may want to do some research on this fellow while waiting for my eventual return. Up to you.
Phred
Thanks for being honest. The world needs to be liberated from Islam and Islam needs to be erradicated.
|
IsaacHunt
Stranger
Registered: 05/27/05
Posts: 176
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Los_Pepes]
#4385702 - 07/08/05 11:53 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
The world needs to be liberated from Islam and Islam needs to be erradicated
That isn't ever going to happen so we need to learn to live with it. The extremists are small in number but by invading countries to rob them blind Bush is playing right into their hands.
We need to look at the causes of the "swamp of despair" the extremists draw from. Withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and freeing Palestine will do more to fight terrorism than all the bombs in America ever will.
|
otoroko
EsotericIllumination
Registered: 03/30/05
Posts: 61
Last seen: 17 years, 14 days
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: IsaacHunt]
#4385951 - 07/09/05 02:24 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Ask yourself who benefits? The oil-military-industrial elite perhaps?
Waiting for them to liberata us all from evils of free thought etc.
"The world needs to be liberated from Islam and Islam needs to be erradicated"
The world needs to be liberated of all forms of organized religion. It's all just differend forms of sun worship/astro-theology. Fucking idiots. Oh yeah, theres this guy in heaven who puts you on this planet seperated from god and nature to SERVE him and then die, go to heaven/hell.. You need blind faith.. Sounds something one might come up with when planning a doctrine for a workforce. Ever seen "they live"? "THIS IS YOUR GOD".
-------------------- when you're watching television the higher brain regions (like the midbrain and the neo-cortex) are shut down, and most activity shifts to the lower brain regions (like the limbic system). The right hemisphere is twice as active as the left, a neurological anomaly. The crossover from left to right releases a surge of the body?s natural opiates: endorphins, which include beta-endorphins and enkephalins. Endorphins are structurally identical to opium and its derivatives (morphine, codeine, heroin, etc.).After just 30 seconds of watching television the brain begins to produce alpha waves, which indicates torpid (almost comatose) rates of activity.
|
Ped
Interested In Your Brain
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: otoroko]
#4389695 - 07/10/05 12:30 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
>> I think it's effectiveness is a bit greater than you think?
Since 9/11 there have been very many terrorist attacks co-ordinated around the world. There have been attacks in Spain, Australia, and now England as well.
>> The objective of the war on terrorism is to kill terrorists and those who support terrorists. Everyone knows the realities of what our country does, intrusive or not, it doesn't take away from the fact that those who kill our citizens for any reason don't deserve life nor the waste of time understanding their purpose.
This view is identical to the view of the terrorists for whom you have such animosity. It is the same. A terrorist understands that the world is aware of Islamic auto-theocratic regimes. Everyone knows the realities of what Islamic nations do, oppressive or not. To them, it does not take away from the fact that those who intrude on their sovreign soil and kill their citizens do not, in their view, deserve life nor the waste of time understanding their purpose.
That is why they fly planes into buildings and take other such extreme actions. It is because western nations have intruded into the affairs of middle easter nations and killed their citizens. It is because of this that they are motivated by the same anger, the same ignorance as we are in our response to 9/11 and other attacks. The only difference is that terrorists do not have access to an arsenal of weapons and infantry. Instead, they have infilitrate otherwise harmless infrastructure and transform it into a weapon.
And so it's easy to see how terrorism, and the response to terrorism, are motivated by the same zeal and the same reasoning. Knowing this, can we expect that the war on terrorism, or terrorism itself, will ever stop?
>> Killing the terrorists is only thing we can do to them. To give them the benefit of understanding is accepting the killing of innocent people as a means of gaining political power.
The United States has already accepted the killing of innocent people as a means of gaining political power. The amount of blood shed in American political games would fill a river. You will not convince me that all of the bombings, shootings, gassings, etc have been for the past 50 years part of a campaign for stability and democracy around the globe. Not when so much money and power has been exchanged through the vehicle of war.
>> Just because you characterize your speculation as "balanced" and "objective" doesn't make it accurate.
Part of maintaining a balanced and objective view is remaining open to the idea that one's perspective is entirely unbalanced and skewed. I assure you I've made this effort.
>> Assumes facts not in evidence -- i.e. that it is just a "distraction" and that there are ulterior motives
As I stated at the beginning of the thread, it is not "just" a distraction. However, neither is it "just" a campaign for freedom and democracy for Middle Eastern people.
There are ulterior motives. I understand that's just an opinion, but it seems quite obvious to me. He who controls the Middle East controls the apex of the world's resources. He who controls the world's resources controls the world. We can take this into consideration when we ask the following question: why, when there are no solid ties between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein (other than the fact that they're both really mean), are we putting so much work into Iraq while Bin Laden continues to slip under the radar?
From this point of view, it seems quite clear that there are motives other than those we've been assured of.
Don't misunderstand -- I don't claim the occupation of Iraq to be part of an endeavour to establish a world-wide American state, or some other such extreme. I am saying that the move was made to secure the future of the United States as the world's lone super power. It's part of a campaign of political posturing against the world's other major economies.
>> The root cause of 95% of the terrorism going on in the world today is the desire of radical Islamists to establish a worldwide Islamic state.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
This is quite a claim. There have been a great many tapes and printed statements circulated in the press from terrorist cells. In all I've seen, heard, and read coming from their side, not once have I seen any evidence that they are at all interested in establishing a world-wide Islamic state.
It seems quite clear to me from all the material circulating from terrorist cells that they are interested in exacting revenge for what they perceive (quite correctly, I feel), as a gross violation of their sovreignty, their culture, and their people.
>> As Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, neatly put it, "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." The first choice of Islamists is to kill Americans and Jews, or best of all an American Jew?like Daniel Pearl, the late Wall Street Journal reporter. Failing that, they're happy to kill Australians, Britons, Canadians, Swedes, Germans, as they did in Bali.
I don't see any desire for a worldwide Islamic state in this paragraph. I see a lot of anger and a lot of hatred, but no special desire for dominance.
The bottom line is that terrorism is fueled by anger over US foreign policy and the participation in it by it's allies.
>> Unfortunately in the real world sometimes one is presented with a situation where the only options are "bad" and "worse".
Oh, of course. I just wish we hadn't gone the "worse" route.
>> So your solution is for the good guys (that's the non-'splodeydopes, in case you're wondering) to roll over and take it up the ass?
I did not propose a solution. Instead, I highlighted the mechanics of the problem and underlined the key points from an unbiased perspective. Not motivated by patriotism, or by anger, or by any kind of hatred for terrorists or those terrorists hate, I examined the problem objectively and presented my views for the sake of discussion.
-------------------- Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
|
Prosgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?
Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 18 years, 2 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Phred]
#4391034 - 07/10/05 10:31 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
The following appeared in the July 18, 2005 issue of The American Conservative:
THE LOGIC OF SUICIDE TERRORISM (link to article)
It?s the occupation, not the fundamentalism
Last month, Scott McConnell caught up with Associate Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, whose book on suicide terrorism, Dying to Win, is beginning to receive wide notice. Pape has found that the most common American perceptions about who the terrorists are and what motivates them are off by a wide margin. In his office is the world?s largest database of information about suicide terrorists, rows and rows of manila folders containing articles and biographical snippets in dozens of languages compiled by Pape and teams of graduate students, a trove of data that has been sorted and analyzed and which underscores the great need for reappraising the Bush administration?s current strategy. Below are excerpts from a conversation with the man who knows more about suicide terrorists than any other American.
The American Conservative: Your new book, Dying to Win, has a subtitle: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Can you just tell us generally on what the book is based, what kind of research went into it, and what your findings were?
Robert Pape: Over the past two years, I have collected the first complete database of every suicide-terrorist attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004. This research is conducted not only in English but also in native-language sources?Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, and Tamil, and others?so that we can gather information not only from newspapers but also from products from the terrorist community. The terrorists are often quite proud of what they do in their local communities, and they produce albums and all kinds of other information that can be very helpful to understand suicide-terrorist attacks.
This wealth of information creates a new picture about what is motivating suicide terrorism. Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think. The world leader in suicide terrorism is a group that you may not be familiar with: the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.
This is a Marxist group, a completely secular group that draws from the Hindu families of the Tamil regions of the country. They invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the suicide vest from the Tamil Tigers.
TAC: So if Islamic fundamentalism is not necessarily a key variable behind these groups, what is?
RP: The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign?over 95 percent of all the incidents?has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.
TAC: That would seem to run contrary to a view that one heard during the American election campaign, put forth by people who favor Bush?s policy. That is, we need to fight the terrorists over there, so we don?t have to fight them here.
RP: Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.
Since 1990, the United States has stationed tens of thousands of ground troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and that is the main mobilization appeal of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. People who make the argument that it is a good thing to have them attacking us over there are missing that suicide terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon. That is, it is driven by the presence of foreign forces on the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. The operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life.
TAC: If we were to back up a little bit before the invasion of Iraq to what happened before 9/11, what was the nature of the agitprop that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were putting out to attract people?
RP: Osama bin Laden?s speeches and sermons run 40 and 50 pages long. They begin by calling tremendous attention to the presence of tens of thousands of American combat forces on the Arabian Peninsula.
In 1996, he went on to say that there was a grand plan by the United States?that the Americans were going to use combat forces to conquer Iraq, break it into three pieces, give a piece of it to Israel so that Israel could enlarge its country, and then do the same thing to Saudi Arabia. As you can see, we are fulfilling his prediction, which is of tremendous help in his mobilization appeals.
TAC: The fact that we had troops stationed on the Arabian Peninsula was not a very live issue in American debate at all. How many Saudis and other people in the Gulf were conscious of it?
RP: We would like to think that if we could keep a low profile with our troops that it would be okay to station them in foreign countries. The truth is, we did keep a fairly low profile. We did try to keep them away from Saudi society in general, but the key issue with American troops is their actual combat power. Tens of thousands of American combat troops, married with air power, is a tremendously powerful tool.
Now, of course, today we have 150,000 troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and we are more in control of the Arabian Peninsula than ever before.
TAC: If you were to break down causal factors, how much weight would you put on a cultural rejection of the West and how much weight on the presence of American troops on Muslim territory?
RP: The evidence shows that the presence of American troops is clearly the pivotal factor driving suicide terrorism.
If Islamic fundamentalism were the pivotal factor, then we should see some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world, like Iran, which has 70 million people?three times the population of Iraq and three times the population of Saudi Arabia?with some of the most active groups in suicide terrorism against the United States. However, there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Iran, and we have no evidence that there are any suicide terrorists in Iraq from Iran.
Sudan is a country of 21 million people. Its government is extremely Islamic fundamentalist. The ideology of Sudan was so congenial to Osama bin Laden that he spent three years in Sudan in the 1990s. Yet there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Sudan.
I have the first complete set of data on every al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from 1995 to early 2004, and they are not from some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world. Two thirds are from the countries where the United States has stationed heavy combat troops since 1990.
Another point in this regard is Iraq itself. Before our invasion, Iraq never had a suicide-terrorist attack in its history. Never. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004, and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year that the United States has stationed 150,000 combat troops in Iraq, suicide terrorism has doubled.
TAC: So your assessment is that there are more suicide terrorists or potential suicide terrorists today than there were in March 2003?
RP: I have collected demographic data from around the world on the 462 suicide terrorists since 1980 who completed the mission, actually killed themselves. This information tells us that most are walk-in volunteers. Very few are criminals. Few are actually longtime members of a terrorist group. For most suicide terrorists, their first experience with violence is their very own suicide-terrorist attack.
There is no evidence there were any suicide-terrorist organizations lying in wait in Iraq before our invasion. What is happening is that the suicide terrorists have been produced by the invasion.
TAC: Do we know who is committing suicide terrorism in Iraq? Are they primarily Iraqis or walk-ins from other countries in the region?
RP: Our best information at the moment is that the Iraqi suicide terrorists are coming from two groups?Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis?the two populations most vulnerable to transformation by the presence of large American combat troops on the Arabian Peninsula. This is perfectly consistent with the strategic logic of suicide terrorism.
TAC: Does al-Qaeda have the capacity to launch attacks on the United States, or are they too tied down in Iraq? Or have they made a strategic decision not to attack the United States, and if so, why?
RP: Al-Qaeda appears to have made a deliberate decision not to attack the United States in the short term. We know this not only from the pattern of their attacks but because we have an actual al-Qaeda planning document found by Norwegian intelligence. The document says that al-Qaeda should not try to attack the continent of the United States in the short term but instead should focus its energies on hitting America?s allies in order to try to split the coalition.
What the document then goes on to do is analyze whether they should hit Britain, Poland, or Spain. It concludes that they should hit Spain just before the March 2004 elections because, and I am quoting almost verbatim: Spain could not withstand two, maximum three, blows before withdrawing from the coalition, and then others would fall like dominoes.
That is exactly what happened. Six months after the document was produced, al-Qaeda attacked Spain in Madrid. That caused Spain to withdraw from the coalition. Others have followed. So al-Qaeda certainly has demonstrated the capacity to attack and in fact they have done over 15 suicide-terrorist attacks since 2002, more than all the years before 9/11 combined. Al-Qaeda is not weaker now. Al-Qaeda is stronger.
TAC: What would constitute a victory in the War on Terror or at least an improvement in the American situation?
RP: For us, victory means not sacrificing any of our vital interests while also not having Americans vulnerable to suicide-terrorist attacks. In the case of the Persian Gulf, that means we should pursue a strategy that secures our interest in oil but does not encourage the rise of a new generation of suicide terrorists.
In the 1970s and the 1980s, the United States secured its interest in oil without stationing a single combat soldier on the Arabian Peninsula. Instead, we formed an alliance with Iraq and Saudi Arabia, which we can now do again. We relied on numerous aircraft carriers off the coast of the Arabian Peninsula, and naval air power now is more effective not less. We also built numerous military bases so that we could move large numbers of ground forces to the region quickly if a crisis emerged.
That strategy, called ?offshore balancing,? worked splendidly against Saddam Hussein in 1990 and is again our best strategy to secure our interest in oil while preventing the rise of more suicide terrorists.
TAC: Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders also talked about the ?Crusaders-Zionist alliance,? and I wonder if that, even if we weren?t in Iraq, would not foster suicide terrorism. Even if the policy had helped bring about a Palestinian state, I don?t think that would appease the more hardcore opponents of Israel.
RP: I not only study the patterns of where suicide terrorism has occurred but also where it hasn?t occurred. Not every foreign occupation has produced suicide terrorism. Why do some and not others? Here is where religion matters, but not quite in the way most people think. In virtually every instance where an occupation has produced a suicide-terrorist campaign, there has been a religious difference between the occupier and the occupied community. That is true not only in places such as Lebanon and in Iraq today but also in Sri Lanka, where it is the Sinhala Buddhists who are having a dispute with the Hindu Tamils.
When there is a religious difference between the occupier and the occupied, that enables terrorist leaders to demonize the occupier in especially vicious ways. Now, that still requires the occupier to be there. Absent the presence of foreign troops, Osama bin Laden could make his arguments but there wouldn?t be much reality behind them. The reason that it is so difficult for us to dispute those arguments is because we really do have tens of thousands of combat soldiers sitting on the Arabian Peninsula.
TAC: Has the next generation of anti-American suicide terrorists already been created? Is it too late to wind this down, even assuming your analysis is correct and we could de-occupy Iraq?
RP: Many people worry that once a large number of suicide terrorists have acted that it is impossible to wind it down. The history of the last 20 years, however, shows the opposite. Once the occupying forces withdraw from the homeland territory of the terrorists, they often stop?and often on a dime.
In Lebanon, for instance, there were 41 suicide-terrorist attacks from 1982 to 1986, and after the U.S. withdrew its forces, France withdrew its forces, and then Israel withdrew to just that six-mile buffer zone of Lebanon, they virtually ceased. They didn?t completely stop, but there was no campaign of suicide terrorism. Once Israel withdrew from the vast bulk of Lebanese territory, the suicide terrorists did not follow Israel to Tel Aviv.
This is also the pattern of the second Intifada with the Palestinians. As Israel is at least promising to withdraw from Palestinian-controlled territory (in addition to some other factors), there has been a decline of that ferocious suicide-terrorist campaign. This is just more evidence that withdrawal of military forces really does diminish the ability of the terrorist leaders to recruit more suicide terrorists.
That doesn?t mean that the existing suicide terrorists will not want to keep going. I am not saying that Osama bin Laden would turn over a new leaf and suddenly vote for George Bush. There will be a tiny number of people who are still committed to the cause, but the real issue is not whether Osama bin Laden exists. It is whether anybody listens to him. That is what needs to come to an end for Americans to be safe from suicide terrorism.
TAC: There have been many kinds of non-Islamic suicide terrorists, but have there been Christian suicide terrorists?
RP: Not from Christian groups per se, but in Lebanon in the 1980s, of those suicide attackers, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were Communists and Socialists. Three were Christians.
TAC: Has the IRA used suicide terrorism?
RP: The IRA did not. There were IRA members willing to commit suicide?the famous hunger strike was in 1981. What is missing in the IRA case is not the willingness to commit suicide, to kill themselves, but the lack of a suicide-terrorist attack where they try to kill others.
If you look at the pattern of violence in the IRA, almost all of the killing is front-loaded to the 1970s and then trails off rather dramatically as you get through the mid-1980s through the 1990s. There is a good reason for that, which is that the British government, starting in the mid-1980s, began to make numerous concessions to the IRA on the basis of its ordinary violence. In fact, there were secret negotiations in the 1980s, which then led to public negotiations, which then led to the Good Friday Accords. If you look at the pattern of the IRA, this is a case where they actually got virtually everything that they wanted through ordinary violence.
The purpose of a suicide-terrorist attack is not to die. It is the kill, to inflict the maximum number of casualties on the target society in order to compel that target society to put pressure on its government to change policy. If the government is already changing policy, then the whole point of suicide terrorism, at least the way it has been used for the last 25 years, doesn?t come up.
TAC: Are you aware of any different strategic decision made by al-Qaeda to change from attacking American troops or ships stationed at or near the Gulf to attacking American civilians in the United States?
RP: I wish I could say yes because that would then make the people reading this a lot more comfortable.
The fact is not only in the case of al-Qaeda, but in suicide-terrorist campaigns in general, we don?t see much evidence that suicide-terrorist groups adhere to a norm of attacking military targets in some circumstances and civilians in others.
In fact, we often see that suicide-terrorist groups routinely attack both civilian and military targets, and often the military targets are off-duty policemen who are unsuspecting. They are not really prepared for battle.
The reasons for the target selection of suicide terrorists appear to be much more based on operational rather than normative criteria. They appear to be looking for the targets where they can maximize the number of casualties.
In the case of the West Bank, for instance, there is a pattern where Hamas and Islamic Jihad use ordinary guerrilla attacks, not suicide attacks, mainly to attack settlers. They use suicide attacks to penetrate into Israel proper. Over 75 percent of all the suicide attacks in the second Intifada were against Israel proper and only 25 percent on the West Bank itself.
TAC: What do you think the chances are of a weapon of mass destruction being used in an American city?
RP: I think it depends not exclusively, but heavily, on how long our combat forces remain in the Persian Gulf. The central motive for anti-American terrorism, suicide terrorism, and catastrophic terrorism is response to foreign occupation, the presence of our troops. The longer our forces stay on the ground in the Arabian Peninsula, the greater the risk of the next 9/11, whether that is a suicide attack, a nuclear attack, or a biological attack.
-------------------- Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes. You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way. - Tom Willhite Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.
|
Vex
Stranger
Registered: 05/04/05
Posts: 1,284
Last seen: 18 years, 5 months
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Phred]
#4392064 - 07/11/05 10:50 AM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
"The root cause of 95% of the terrorism going on in the world today is the desire of radical Islamists to establish a worldwide Islamic state."
That is such bullshit. Are you freakin kidding me? Where did you come up with this figure?
|
IsaacHunt
Stranger
Registered: 05/27/05
Posts: 176
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: Vex]
#4394374 - 07/11/05 11:58 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
It's not 95% anyway, everybody knows it's 93.5%.
|
Los_Pepes
Stranger
Registered: 06/26/05
Posts: 731
|
Re: On Terrorism and the War Against it [Re: IsaacHunt]
#4396848 - 07/12/05 05:22 PM (18 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
|
|