The Terrorism thread

[Kal-el]

I thought I should point this out, mostly due to the recent terror attacks in London. Terrorism has been around awile, with its use as early as the Classical Age against the Romans. The term "terrorism" was coined during the reign of the Jacobins in revolutionary France, and has the imagery of intimidation, brutality, and fear. America's experience with this is relatively recent, however, becoming the regular target of terrorists in the Cold War era. Today, we deal with these terrorists, who use identical tactics as terrorists in the past. Why are we the target of these terrorists? The answer is simple: we are a hinderance to their goals and a disturbance in the region, simply put we are seen as the enemy.

First of all, let's look at the region and what the people want. We enjoy the liberal democracies/republics of the west, and assume its what others want too. I don't think so. Unlike in the west, there is no separation of church and state in the middle east. Many "extremeists" are intertwined with government and how it should be run. Saudi municipal elections showed a decisive win for "fundamentalists". This dosen't mean that the region will sucumb into tyranny, even though that is what some people want. Most would rather opt for a government that is fair and Islamic in nature. This is being different and we must accept this.

This is where the west, and America specifically, enter the picture. There are alot of reasons for our involvement in the region, ranging from Cold War politics to economic interests. In the process, we left behind our mark that is more visible today by the terrorists we are fighting. We overthrew an ELECTED Prime Minister of Iran to be replaced by the brutal Shah, in responce to Iran's nationalization of British and American oil interests and to "counter" Soviet influence. Both the Shah's brutal measures and introduction of pro-western reforms alienated the population to the point of revolution in 1979, where a fundalmentalist Iranian government took power. That government is not what the people want, but they enjoy the popularity of the anti-US sentiment from the days of the Shah, and more recently for its defiant stand against the US. We have supported numerous regimes that we know to be corrupt, yet to so anyway for our own interest. American involvement in this arena has alienated and radicalized the population.

Some may counter by saying it is time to correct the mistakes of the past and change the dynamic of the region. This is the exact same attitude that was held during the imperialist era and is nonsense. The US agenda introduced into the region as what is seen by many Arabs as further violations of soverignty; an arrogant power continuing in the legacy as the Cold War. One thing that we should have learned from history is that change comes from within a nation and the thoughts of its people. Iran is a perfect example. The people are again asking for change as the hatred for the US inspired by the Shah's regime gradually lessens and the ruling elite losing its power hold. Such thinking cannot be forced on the people. Another example is Qatar, a shining example of prosperity in a land of misery. The people have accepted some wetern ideals over time, though Islam plays an important role in the lives of the people. So, my point is to change the dynamic is unrealistic. This can't and won't be accomplished with force.

Now that we have looked at why we are so attractive to terrorists, what can be done? The first thing would be to stop the status quo. The invasion of Iraq confirms the suspicions of many that we are there to satisfy our selfish motives at the cost of the people and imposing our will on them. Let the region follow its own "dynamic." The wishes of the people are crystal clear. It probably dosen't sound appealing to us, but we don't live there. Let the people have the type of government they want, and let them work for it. They are not incapable of overthrowing dictatorships (alot we supported), and us getting involved adds to the problem.

As unappealing as it may be to accept that we are responsible for this problem, it is the fact. It is more acceptable to claim that they hate us for our "freedom" or way of life. Nothing is further from the truth. They do have a different way of life and a different religion, but that isn't what drives their hate. Our unneccasary and unwanted intrusion into their lives over the past few decades is enough. Let's stop this behavior before we uneccassarily suffer and lose even more lives for our behavior.

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by penguinsfan
England and all the NATO allies have sent troops to hunt bin Laden, as well as other countries such as Canada. Remember the Canadians that were mistakenly killed by US forces? Well, they were there in the effort to hunt bin Laden.

I am aware of this, I was using sarcasm before.

I am not going to debate the reasons why we went into Afganistan. The US response to 9/11 was waging a war with Afganistan. Ok, I don't support it, but its justifiable. Anyway, Bush gave UBL like a 3 month head start before he did anything after 9/11.
But, if W never went to war, would more Americans be alive today? Bush's war brings the casaulity of American lives since 9/11 to around 4,800 people. What difference would it had made if terrorists killed Americans or W's foreign policy killed them? I guess with Americans being killed due to W's foreign policies, they are WILLING to die as opposed to a terrorist coming over and ending the lives of the UNWILLING. But its speculative, but worth the effort to look at the increasing death toll of military- and wonder if this war on Iraq made any difference in body count. Ultimately, the purpose of this war is to lessen death. This isn't a war about economics or 2 political ideas, but an engagement of people that are spoonfed that they are doing the right thing in killing.

The enemy is winning because they are killing about as many people as they would have if we didn't invade. Al- Quadea and George Bush seem to be competing- whose policies will kill more Americans.

 

[REDZULU2003]

I aint going to get too involved with this thread 'cos I would be here forever with lots to say and probably offend some members.
So I will say this, Terrorism can be defeated, it can also be defeated without attacking other nations or people, and done in a calm manner.
Example being the IRA in Ireland and their attacks on England in the UK.
Also they attacked parts of Ireland, but I'm now dealing with England.
For years we had this, being attacked by the IRA and my city was blown to hell by them some years ago 'Manchester' and London has been attacked many times.
Tons have been killed, they target anyone, anywhere and at anytime.
We the Brits, didnt jump over to Ireland and start attacking IRA targets like say we and someother nations have done in Iraq, but had peacekeepers in place to observe and maintain order on the areas affected in Ireland.
Our soldiers were NOT allowed to shoot anyone, unless told so by a HIGH ranking officer...unlike in Iraq where if someone runs at you they can be dropped, I agree with that as its a threat but the UK soldiers weren't allowed and some went against this and got Court marsheled and sent down for it...we were peacekeepers.
It took YEARS and YEARS and YEARS and YEARS, but finally we the British have found peace with the IRA, they have stopped 'touch wood' attacking our soild and also their own, with just minor hiccups here and their from time to time.
Mainly from plastic groups such as the fake IRA, but these are amateurs.
The IRA dis-armed most of its weapons and even showed a insight into its training camps and videos where the English are HATED.
Anyways, we beat it....took many fuckin years but we now dont get attacked by the IRA, we still have peacekeepers in Ireland to this day and we still will be hated for reasons mainly religious and with us also owning the North, the peace is kept.
It took COUNTLESS times of talking with the leaders of shien fein and other Irish groups but it has been done and the IRA stopped its war on us.
I feel that the world should take note of Britains efforts with dealing with this terrorism and start doing the same.
I'm sad that we went against the grain and attacked Iraq, but its started now so......
I feel that we could prevent alot of other attacks if the British gouvernment talked to the terrorists, and/or the nations involved with it.
No this isnt giving in to the terrorists, but solving it and doing it in a modern way and not blowing every fucker up and just makeing things worse.

 

[REDZULU2003]

I have to jump in here and edit members from saying ENGLAND....its the UNITED KINDGOM or BRITAIN and thats England, Wales, Scotland and also Northern Ireland...it isnt just ENGLAND.
Sorry for the capitals, I aint pissed just need to make it sink in that it isnt just England, but a whole Kingdom...my kindom of many nations.#
Plus I might as well add, the UK should look back to how its handled the IRA and solved that without all the attacks done to Iraq and co.
We can solve some of this by doing what we did with the IRA.
See the thread 'reasoning behind terrorism'.

 

[iwant8inches]

Best start to a thread in a long while.

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by Me
America's experience with this is relatively recent, however, becoming the regular target of terrorists in the Cold War era.

I forgot that in the American Revolution, we used asymetic warfare, ambushes, sniping and raids- which during the 18th century would have constituted terrorism in the minds of the strict military tacticians of then. So we practiced it here much earlier than that.

 

[loco]

Red I would like to see the peaceful side of things but also to string it out for yrs and yrs seems crazy. and to many lost lives over a long period of time. maybe it's just me but they came knocking here (terrorist) not iraq in this case. and so personally speaking I have no problem for the sake of civilians and things taking it to thier backyard and trying to find them and attempt to put a stop to it. now there is also a point to where you say ok enough is enough they are hiding to well for us, go home but be aware trouble may come knocking again. now may be a good time for that, but of course I don't know any more than they allow the media to feed us which is usually slighted and bias anyway.

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by REDZULU2003
So I will say this, Terrorism can be defeated, it can also be defeated without attacking other nations or people, and done in a calm manner.
Example being the IRA in Ireland and their attacks on England in the UK.

Exactly, I can't stress this enough. Wonderful example in Northern Ireland.

 

[penguinsfan]

The US response to 9/11 was waging a war with Afganistan. Ok, I don't support it, but its justifiable.

Well, that's better than hearing you call it unjustified, but I'm curious as to what an appropriate response would have been that you would have supported.

Anyway, Bush gave UBL like a 3 month head start before he did anything after 9/11.

9/11/01: al-Qaeda attacks the WTC and the Pentagon.
9/20/01: Bush issues his demands of the Taliban before a joint session of Congress.
10/7/01: U.S. forces launch strikes in Afghanistan.

You've got to get up so early to fool me that you'll be too damn tired to do it when you time comes, but if you keep the exaggerations within reason you can fool most people.

It seems like a reasonable timeline to me, given how serious and unprecedented the matter was.

But, if W never went to war, would more Americans be alive today? Bush's war brings the casaulity of American lives since 9/11 to around 4,800 people.

First, you're getting away from a legitimate argument because you're linking deaths from 9/11 in with military casualties in Iraq, which was not a direct response to 9/11. So the number 4,800 is irrelevant, because no course of action could have changed the roughly 3,000 that died on 9/11. At last count I saw, there were over 1,600 deaths from the Iraq campaign. So it's by no mean a valid illustration to address what if W had never gone to war.

Second, more Americans might not be alive today, but probably down the road. While there have been costs, the military efforts have resulted in the deaths or arrest of a number of signifcant Islamofascists, whose goal is nothing more or less than to kill as many westerners as possible.

What difference would it had made if terrorists killed Americans or W's foreign policy killed them? I guess with Americans being killed due to W's foreign policies, they are WILLING to die as opposed to a terrorist coming over and ending the lives of the UNWILLING. But its speculative, but worth the effort to look at the increasing death toll of military- and wonder if this war on Iraq made any difference in body count. Ultimately, the purpose of this war is to lessen death. This isn't a war about economics or 2 political ideas, but an engagement of people that are spoonfed that they are doing the right thing in killing.

The enemy is winning because they are killing about as many people as they would have if we didn't invade. Al- Quadea and George Bush seem to be competing- whose policies will kill more Americans.

That is one of the more disturbing things I have ever read. If I were to kill you (illustration, not a threat) why should I be punished? After all, we can safely assume that you are indeed going to die someday. If I was responsible for you death by way of a motor vehicle accident should the penalty be the same as if I had shot you in cold blood?

You have a way of throwing these numbers around in your posts without ever addressing the moral element of those deaths. Though tragic, it is not the same when one is killed unintentionally, as compared to an act of violence. Just yesterday a car bomber killed an American troop and I believe 27 children by driving up with a car bomb. For one thing, most leftist sources count insurgent deaths as "civilian deaths" because they're not part of a standing army (but somehow they're supposedly entitled to Geneva Convention protection). It totally skews any reflection on how our troops are conducting themselves. Show me one example of an American troop blowing himself up in such an operation.

All deaths are not morally equal. I can accept that people die by accidents and natural causes, but murderous violence requires that someone is brought to justice.

 

[penguinsfan]

Plus I might as well add, the UK should look back to how its handled the IRA and solved that without all the attacks done to Iraq and co. We can solve some of this by doing what we did with the IRA.
See the thread 'reasoning behind terrorism'.

RED, I honestly think you're wrong about this. I freely admit that I am not an expert on the IRA problems within the UK, but I do believe it was a power struggle issue more than anything. I don't believe the IRA ever had a belief instilled in them that would equal Whahabism, the sick mental illness that says EVERYONE that does not believe like you must convert or be killed.

If someone says "do X,Y, and Z or I will kill you" and you are simply not going to do X,Y, and Z, then you can certainly try to negotiate. But if it becomes apparent that this person is not going to change his mind, sooner or later it dawns on you that your options are pretty limited other than dying or killing, and I'll personally choose killing over dying 10 out of 10 times. The UK will not do what really should be done, but what they need to do (IMHO) is to go into the community that is fast becoming Londonistan and find the radicals that were rallying in the streets a few weeks ago, calling for the deaths of Tony Blair and George Bush, while promising jihad and KILL THEM! With London's surveillance cameras, it's not as if they couldn't identify who the radical element is.

 

[finalsight]

I'd just like to add some wise sayings:

"Just because one way is easier doesn't make it the best"

"Violence only breeds more violence"

"the enduring hand gathers allies, the violent hand pushes them away"

"We are not afraid"

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by penguinsfan
Well, that's better than hearing you call it unjustified, but I'm curious as to what an appropriate response would have been that you would have supported.

Well, I don't fully support violence, but if I had to pick I'd say that fighting terrorism is a police matter, not a military one. A war is waged by an army fighting against another one.

That is one of the more disturbing things I have ever read. If I were to kill you (illustration, not a threat) why should I be punished? After all, we can safely assume that you are indeed going to die someday. If I was responsible for you death by way of a motor vehicle accident should the penalty be the same as if I had shot you in cold blood?

If you were responsible for my death by the means of a shotgun blast, that's a little different then let's say a motor vehicle accident, and should be treated as such. One is pre-meditated and the other is'nt. They are Totally different. Even though the end result is the same.

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by penguinsfan
You've got to get up so early to fool me that you'll be too damn tired to do it when you time comes, but if you keep the exaggerations within reason you can fool most people.

For the record I'm not trying to fool anyone, and what exactly are you talking about about getting up early?

Originally posted by penguinsfan
All deaths are not morally equal. I can accept that people die by accidents and natural causes, but murderous violence requires that someone is brought to justice.

I agree

Originally posted by penguinsfan
It seems like a reasonable timeline to me, given how serious and unprecedented the matter was.

I don't support violence at all, but asking W to be non-violent is asking to much, I know this. I know I sound like a pacifist- I basically am. If Bush acted swiftly and silently the al-Quaeda training camps in Afganistan would have been nothing but dust, and within just a few days after the attacks. If he would'nt have given a warning- nothing- just kept his mouth shut and would have mounted an attack without telegraphing his intentions. It might sound cruel, hell, even radical, but such an attack would have been effective in that they had'nt yet begun hiding or developing their defensive posture. I believe we could have decimated al-Quaeda if we would have simply attacked- with no warning at all, and I mean a decisive all-out attack on anything that resembled al-Quaeda or the Taliban.

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by REDZULU2003
For years we had this, being attacked by the IRA and my city was blown to hell by them some years ago 'Manchester' and London has been attacked many times.
Tons have been killed, they target anyone, anywhere and at anytime.
We the Brits, didnt jump over to Ireland and start attacking IRA targets like say we and someother nations have done in Iraq, but had peacekeepers in place to observe and maintain order on the areas affected in Ireland.

Excellent point Red, however the attitude of the British government to the IRA is in my opinion a model which contrasts very positively with the insane US term "war on terror." It is true that if the British had conceded a state of war, they would have conceded POW status, unlike the tawdry US administration. But by the insistance that terrorists routinely targeted civilians, including women and children, were nothing more than criminals, the British made clear a statement belittling the postures of these so called "freedom fighters." People who kill like the IRA killed, belong in the same prison as the Yorkshire Ripper, and not enshrined in song as martyrs to some noble cause. In doing this (with some exceptions re: the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland which found scores of IRA members not guilty for lack of proof), we maintained the old principles of liberty and due process in a way which the Americans seemed to abandoned. Of course the abuses of governmental power by the armed forces and the security services are a matter of record in Northern Ireland, but on my point- the IRA are nothing but a bunch of murderers.

Now that I'm on the subject, In a modern inclusive Europe where progressives are looking for devolved government in a co-operating Europe (something which Ireland has and will gain from massively), these "soldiers" are now relics of an ugly past. True, Britain has a responsibility for creating the situation, but the Toiseach has no such debt and is right to tell thses thugs to sort themselves out if they want to be taken seriously in the future.

 

[penguinsfan]

Well, I don't fully support violence, but if I had to pick I'd say that fighting terrorism is a police matter, not a military one. A war is waged by an army fighting against another one.

That would be the ideal response, but in reality it is more of a domestic one. If you don't have legal jurisdiction in a given territory, it is tough to do that kind of action. Also, when a state sponsors terrorism or knowingly provides safe haven for terrorists and shows no cooperation in bringing such individuals to justice, then military action to remove that ruling authority or bring them to suBathmateit to given terms is completely justified.

If you were responsible for my death by the means of a shotgun blast, that's a little different then let's say a motor vehicle accident, and should be treated as such. One is pre-meditated and the other is'nt. They are Totally different. Even though the end result is the same.

I agree completely. But my point is this is why mourn the deaths of those that have died on the 9/11 attacks and in the pursuit of justice following the attacks, but I have absolutely no sympathy for the terrorists or Taliban forces. The only tragedy is that the entirety of them is not yet dead. There is no moral equivalence here because the deceased office workers and even US soldiers would have never under any circumstances planned a massive attack with the intention of killing unsuspecting civilians, whereas the terrorist element would do it all again in a nanosecond.

By the same token, you cannot equate those civilians that have died during our military campaign to our civilians killed on 9/11. Civilian deaths at the hands of our military action are absolutely tragic, but they are not intentional and are victims of accidental death, whereas ours were victims of pre-meditated murder. It is not a moral equivalent. That is not meant to belittle their significance, but simply to show our cause is justified in spite of some inevitable accidental casualties.

 

[penguinsfan]

For the record I'm not trying to fool anyone, and what exactly are you talking about about getting up early?

I was just feeling a little smartassed and saying I watch for exaggerations and inaccuracies when debating something and I'll call them out. It's nothing personal. I've enjoyed kicking the issue around with you, despite our disagreements.

I don't support violence at all, but asking W to be non-violent is asking to much, I know this. I know I sound like a pacifist- I basically am. If Bush acted swiftly and silently the al-Quaeda training camps in Afganistan would have been nothing but dust, and within just a few days after the attacks. If he would'nt have given a warning- nothing- just kept his mouth shut and would have mounted an attack without telegraphing his intentions. It might sound cruel, hell, even radical, but such an attack would have been effective in that they had'nt yet begun hiding or developing their defensive posture. I believe we could have decimated al-Quaeda if we would have simply attacked- with no warning at all, and I mean a decisive all-out attack on anything that resembled al-Quaeda or the Taliban.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but that is certainly an interesting observation. To what degree it might have worked, who's to know? I kinda suspect that bin Laden and his top ranking crew were holed up almost immediately as a precaution, but it probably would have set their forces back somewhat. The problem is the media would have bitched about being kept in the dark as they tend to think they need ten journalists for every soldier to give us the constant updates. The bigger problem is some in the international community would have cried out the some diplomatic effort should have been attempted first, such as the list of demands before the joint session of Congress. Still an interesting thought, seeing as how you cannot please everyone anyway.

 

[wreck]

This thread needs to get back on topic out of respect for the UK and its tragic loss. Both kal-el and penguin have very valid points but there are other threads about Bush and the war and thats where their discussion should get moved to.

Tnx

 

[copper_handshak]

Iraq is a war of liberation. America is thanked by those who value peace and freedom. You others...must be mentally ill. I pity you.

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by copper handshak
Iraq is a war of liberation. America is thanked by those who value peace and freedom. You others...must be mentally ill. I pity you.

Please.. That's exactly what the powers that be want the population to believe. They tell you that you must fight for your country. Negative. No country deserves that. They also say "what if enemies invade our country, should'nt we defend ourselves?" An answer to that would be non-violence is more effiecnt than violence.

These same people tell you that you must fight for your liberty, but they seemed to forget that the Gauls lost their war against the Romans and that the French are no worse off for being descendents of the conquered, having benefited from the civilazation of the conquerers. These are just narrow-minded, agressive people.

 

[wreck]

My heart felt condolences go out to all in the UK

Egyptian chemist Magdy MaHydromaxoud Mustafa el-Nashar's town house, where British news media reported that police found evidence of the explosive TATP inside a bathtub.

"but he says he wasn't involved??"

Egypt's Interior Ministry announced Friday that Egyptian authorities were interrogating el-Nashar

"Anyone ever here of how the Egyptians interrogate? I here their not to nice"

"From the families of the bombers"

Hussain's family said it was unaware of his activities and "would have done everything in our power to stop him" had it known.

Khan's family expressed "deepest and heartfelt sympathies" for the victims and insisted Khan must have been "brainwashed" to have been involved. The family called on people to "expose the terror networks which target and groom our sons to carry out such evils."

"I hope they are sincere and maybe something good can come from this with the Arab population starting to speak out"