DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on February 24, 2007, 09:02:50 PM
-
For those who think Bush is Hitler, stole the election, it's all about the oil, garbage like that, please refrain from this thread
For those who believe the war was wrong (be it morally or whatever) and/or for those that believe the war is justified, I look forward to your comments
Question: Rightly or wrongly having entered Iraq, has the invasion made things worse, as it relates to increasing terrorist recruits & their potential attacks upon the U.S.?
I realize Radical Islam was going to gain in terrorist membership, but did our taking out Saddam and the WMD threat speed things up or slow it down? It's really speculation at this point, since there's no way to compare what we did to a hypothetically what we didn't. But from a common sense stand point (again referring to the rationally minded) has our entering Iraq & taking out Saddam, been a big mistake on the overall war on Terror?
-
How was Saddam going to cope with radical Islamists?
-
.....has our entering Iraq & taking out Saddam, been a big mistake on the overall war on Terror?
From a military standpoint, i would say, no.
From a political standpoint, i can agree that though Iraq is a major part of the WOT, it has been a distraction. And will the effects of it being inflated to wedge issue, lead to the ultimate failure of the WOT? I don't know.
Sooner or later this country will need to do a soul searching gut check, and that will determine our future and the direction of the world as we know it.
-
<<For those who think Bush is Hitler, stole the election, it's all about the oil, garbage like that, please refrain from this thread>>
Why?
<<For those who believe the war was wrong (be it morally or whatever) and/or for those that believe the war is justified, I look forward to your comments>>
That's more like it. I believe the war was wrong. Here's my comment.
<<Question: Rightly or wrongly having entered Iraq, has the invasion made things worse, as it relates to increasing terrorist recruits & their potential attacks upon the U.S.?>>
Yes to both questions.
1. Terrorist recruits: A lot of Iraqis were killed by the American invasion. Bombed to bits in their homes and shelters, shot full of holes at checkpoints, etc. This sort of thing tends to encourage negative vibes. The tens of thousands originally killed leave relatives behind, who feel kind of angry and bitter about the whole thing. Now here's the truly incredible part of the story: Even though the Americans came to bring democracy to Iraq and had no thoughts whatever about all the oil, some of the survivors of the invasion hated them! Can you believe it? The rank ingratitude! You come all this way just to bring them democracy out of the sheer goodness of your hearts, honestly without even a thought for the oil, and all those annoying assholes can think about is, you killed their senile old fart of a father, you raped and mangled their ugly little slut of a sister! But that's life. Try to do a little good in the world, and what do you get? It's almost enough to make you lose your faith in human nature.
Now I'm not saying that every single relative of every raped, tortured, kidnapped, murdered, shot up, blown up, bombed out, mutilated, buried alive Iraqi has gone and joined the "terrorists." But I'm also not saying that all of those folks were brought up in an atmosphere of love, forgiveness, reconciliation and turning the other cheek either. Family, even extended family, still means a lot to those folks and maybe some aren't as quick to forgive harm done to their loved ones and family members as we think they should be. While some of those nasty little buggers actually believe in a culture of retaliation and revenge. Truth to tell, this part of the world never did develop much of a reputation for non-violence or pacifism.
IMHO, asking if the invasion has increased the recruiting of "terrorists" is about as intelligent as asking if 9-11 has increased American interest in airport security.
2. Potential attacks on the U.S.A. -- THINK about it. You fuck with their women, children and elderly. Now it's their turn. How many American women, children and elderly do you think they're likely to find if they stay in Iraq?
-
Yes.
But since you consider me irrational, feel free to ignore that.
-
I knew he was talking about YOU, hnumpah. That's why I went ahead and answered his questions.
-
Well if you knew he was talking about me, I guess it's not just that I have some sort of persecution complex then...
-
<<For those who think Bush is Hitler, stole the election, it's all about the oil, garbage like that, please refrain from this thread>>
Why?
Since this thread is more geared to those who can think objectively vs hyperbolically, which includes those that believe war is morally wrong, but can actually grasp the concept of why we went in. That way the criticisms they apply can be considered as rational vs delusional.
Now, if you wish to engage in an irrational & delusional discussion about how going into Iraq was all about the oil, and the asanine Bush lied us into the war diatribes, by all means, start up one of those knute-like threads
Potential attacks on the U.S.A. -- THINK about it. You fuck with their women, children and elderly. Now it's their turn. How many American women, children and elderly do you think they're likely to find if they stay in Iraq?
Perfect example of what I'm talking about. ::)
-
How was Saddam going to cope with radical Islamists?
Hmmm, well, since his enemies were their enemies, my guess he wouldn't of had a problem with them, as long as they didn't bother with his dictatorship. And if he could get some big bucks out of it, all the better.
-
.....has our entering Iraq & taking out Saddam, been a big mistake on the overall war on Terror?
From a military standpoint, i would say, no.
So, from your perspective you believe our going into Iraq has ......... done what to Militant Islam?
- Decreased their leadership ranks?
- Decentralized their communication/command structure?
- Made them have to focus many more of their assets in specific locations?
- What is your guess, from a military standpoint, have we been effective at, that likely would not have been the case, had we not gone into Iraq?
From a political standpoint, i can agree that though Iraq is a major part of the WOT, it has been a distraction. And will the effects of it being inflated to wedge issue, lead to the ultimate failure of the WOT? I don't know.
I can go along with that
Sooner or later this country will need to do a soul searching gut check, and that will determine our future and the direction of the world as we know it.
A couple more 911's? Or will that simply be the new launching platform for blaming Bush, in allowing more 911's to happen?
-
Yes. But since you consider me irrational, feel free to ignore that.
Ummm, if you say so. Would have been nice to see a little more clarity & detail as to why, but whatever
-
Lots of things would be nice.
Like not being derided as irrational, or lacking some sort of common sense, or letting some supposed hatred of George Bush override my logic when it comes to my opinions of his actions.
And don't feel I am just picking on you. BT took a shot the other day, and RR accused me of being positively gleeful about some nonsensical shit.
So why should I offer reasons to back my conclusions just to get more of the same? Screw it.
-
So, from your perspective you believe our going into Iraq has ......... done what to Militant Islam?
- Decreased their leadership ranks?
- Decentralized their communication/command structure?
- Made them have to focus many more of their assets in specific locations?
- What is your guess, from a military standpoint, have we been effective at, that likely would not have been the case, had we not gone into Iraq?
From a military standpoint taking out Saddam was a success. As they switched gears from conquest to occupation, mistakes were made. Widespread looting and lawlessness should not have been toleated, the lack of law and order and the slow rebuilding effort all had negative impact. We should have surged two years ago.
I understand why we didn't and those decisions were made from a political rather than a military or operational viewpoint.
Some successes have occured. Free elections, Saddams capture and trial, Zarqawi's death.
But the average citizen of Iraq is not unlike the average citizen of the US. They want reasonable safety when they are out and about, they want clean water and heating, cooling and cooking power. They want to be able to go to work. They want to raise their families, they want a normal life and we haven't done the best job at facilitating that.
And that is not necessarily a military function. More a job for Peace Corps, Job Corps. Vista and all those other non military service type organizations. Let the military provide the security and put the kids to work.
-
<<Perfect example of what I'm talking about.>>
What, common sense? You were talking about common sense? GOOD, plane, you're on the right track. Finally.
-
<<Since this thread is more geared to those who can think objectively vs hyperbolically, which includes those that believe war is morally wrong, but can actually grasp the concept of why we went in.>>
Oh, I KNOW why you went in, sirs, as does most of the rest of the world, in fact. However the subject matter of this particular thread actually did not relate directly to that issue.
-
Lots of things would be nice. Like not being derided as irrational, or lacking some sort of common sense, or letting some supposed hatred of George Bush override my logic when it comes to my opinions of his actions....So why should I offer reasons to back my conclusions just to get more of the same? Screw it.
Hey, I'm not putting you into the irrational/delusional category like Tee, if your comments & commentaries aren't. If that's what you want to believe though, go for it. However if you're going to conclude that somehow Bush knew Saddam didn't have WMD from the get go, but took us to war anyways, then I was wrong about your sense of rationality, and you chose correctly not to participate in this thread
-
From a military standpoint taking out Saddam was a success.
Mission accomplished, agreed.
As they switched gears from conquest to occupation, mistakes were made. Widespread looting and lawlessness should not have been toleated, the lack of law and order and the slow rebuilding effort all had negative impact. We should have surged two years ago.
Ok, 2 for 2, though with the caveat, that I was supportive of General Casey's conclusions more troops were unnecessary
I understand why we didn't and those decisions were made from a political rather than a military or operational viewpoint. Some successes have occured. Free elections, Saddams capture and trial, Zarqawi's death. But the average citizen of Iraq is not unlike the average citizen of the US. They want reasonable safety when they are out and about, they want clean water and heating, cooling and cooking power. They want to be able to go to work. They want to raise their families, they want a normal life and we haven't done the best job at facilitating that.
Yes...but...I think we're getting a little sidetracked here. With all that we've done, the new elections, government, constitution, etc., and with all what the Iraqis would want, in the way or reasonable safety and security, have we inadvertantly sped up the recruiting process for Alqeda and other Islamofascist organizations? Have we made them more accessible to become members of? Or have we hurt them? And if so, from a speculation stand point, to what degree, would you think?
And that is not necessarily a military function. More a job for Peace Corps, Job Corps. Vista and all those other non military service type organizations. Let the military provide the security and put the kids to work.
Again, a point of mutual agreement
-
I realize this addresses Britain, but as they are the closest of our allies, I thought it applicable. I'll reserve comment until I figure out whether I have a rational mind or not.
Terror threat to Britain worst since 9/11
The threat of a terrorist attack in Britain by home-grown Islamists is at its highest since the September 11, 2001 attacks, a newspaper said, citing a secret government report.
British-based operatives loyal to Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda terror network numbering potentially more than 2,000 are planning suicide attacks against "soft" targets, the document said, according to the Sunday Telegraph.
The number is far greater than was previously thought by the security services.
"The scale of Al-Qaeda's ambitions towards attacking the UK and the number of UK extremists prepared to participate in attacks are even greater than we had previously judged," the document said, according to the newspaper.
"We still believe that AQ (Al-Qaeda) will continue to seek opportunities for mass casualty attacks against soft targets and key infrastructure. These attacks are likely to involve the use of suicide operatives."
The document said that "attack planning" against Britain was to increase this year, The Sunday Telegraph reported.
The country was rocked in July 2005 when four British Islamists carried out suicide attacks on London's transport system, killing themselves and 52 others, the first such attacks in the kingdom.
The secret report said Al-Qaeda, which was behind the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, had a foothold in almost every majority-Muslim country.
Entitled "Extremist Threat Assessment", it said that Afghanistan was expected to overtake Iraq as the hotbed for terrorists plotting attacks against Western forces.
The US-led 37-nation coalition in Afghanistan is expecting to face a renewed assault on its forces by the Taliban, which was ousted from power following the 2001 attacks on the United States.
"With violence in Afghanistan intensifying, and therefore receiving greater media attention, the country may well become more attractive as a venue for foreigners wishing to fulfil their jihad ambitions," the document said.
A senior political source told the newspaper that the outlook was "particularly bleak and unlikely to improve for several years.
The security services have constantly warned that the task of countering Islamist terrorism is a daunting one. There will be more attacks in Britain."
Eliza Manningham-Buller, head of the MI5 domestic intelligence agency, disclosed in November last year that her agents were tracking over 1,600 suspects from 200 groups, most with Al-Qaeda ties.
The spy chief warned of nearly 30 terror plots under investigation.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070225/wl_uk_afp/britainattacksqaeda;_ylt=Av8TtUjTpUO2NSadrRF.mZd0bBAF
-
have we inadvertantly sped up the recruiting process for Alqeda and other Islamofascist organizations? Have we made them more accessible to become members of? Or have we hurt them? And if so, from a speculation stand point, to what degree, would you think?
Hard to say. I really don't know.
"jamil" has been laying low trying to keep out of harms way and finds out his little brother and sister have been blown up in a bus bomb.
He wants revenge.
Does he join a militia? Does he enlist in the Iraqi Army? Does he join the Police? Does he join the "resistance" ? Does he join Al Queda?
Which of the above are Islamofascist?
-
<<"jamil" has been laying low trying to keep out of harms way and finds out his little brother and sister have been blown up in a bus bomb.>>
Get into the spirit. Don't be so evasive. The question was related to Iraqi-American violence, not Iraqi-Iraqi violence. What does Jamil do when his bro and little sis are blown up by a JDAM, Willy Petered at Falluja, lit up by a U.S. Marine at a checkpoint, tortured at Abu Ghraib, raped and butchered by G.I.s?
-
<<Hey, I'm not putting you into the irrational/delusional category like Tee . . . >>
NO!!! not the dreaded "irrational/delusional" category!! sirs, don't do it! I'll be good! I'll say that Bush is spending half a trillion bucks of good American money to fulfill his Constitutional mandate to bring democracy to the Iraqi people while 45 million Americans go without health insurance. I'll believe that American soldiers are knights in shinng armour. Honest! I'll say that America will be forced to attack Iran because of the huge threat that Iran poses to America, at least as big as the one that tiny Iraq - - oops, I mean bad, mighty Iraq - - posed to America before the invasion. I'm rational. I'm free of delusion. Cross my heart I am.
I just wanna be rational like you, sirs. Free of delusion like you.
-
I realize this addresses Britain, but as they are the closest of our allies, I thought it applicable. I'll reserve comment until I figure out whether I have a rational mind or not.
LOL
Interesting article, BTW. Thanks for sharing
-
have we inadvertantly sped up the recruiting process for Alqeda and other Islamofascist organizations? Have we made them more accessible to become members of? Or have we hurt them? And if so, from a speculation stand point, to what degree, would you think?
Hard to say. I really don't know. "jamil" has been laying low trying to keep out of harms way and finds out his little brother and sister have been blown up in a bus bomb. He wants revenge.
Sounds logical. At who of course is the dilemma, especially when it's kinda muddled as to if it's simply sectarian violence, or Terrorist facilitated violence to spur the sectarian violence and instability? The former provides for an easy target, be it a Shiite or a Suuni. The later requires more introspection and committment. A greater understanding of what's going around them
Does he join a militia? Does he enlist in the Iraqi Army? Does he join the Police? Does he join the "resistance" ? Does he join Al Queda?
Which of the above are Islamofascist?
The last one really, outside of splinter cells within the others perhaps
-
Get into the spirit. Don't be so evasive.
Mikey,
You worry about posting your own nonsense.
I"ll handle posting my ............. er ............................brilliant analysis.
-
<<"jamil" has been laying low trying to keep out of harms way and finds out his little brother and sister have been blown up in a bus bomb.>>
Get into the spirit. Don't be so evasive. The question was related to Iraqi-American violence, not Iraqi-Iraqi violence. What does Jamil do when his bro and little sis are blown up by a JDAM, Willy Petered at Falluja, lit up by a U.S. Marine at a checkpoint, tortured at Abu Ghraib, raped and butchered by G.I.s?
You don't mean that Iriqui vs Iriqui violence does not matter?
And doesn't amount to the greatest present problem?
And would cease entirely if there were no Americans there?
-
<<Mikey,
<<You worry about posting your own nonsense.
<<I"ll handle posting my ............. er ............................brilliant analysis.>>
LOL. Sorry, BT. Inquiring minds wanted to know.
-
<<You don't mean that Iriqui vs Iriqui violence does not matter?
<< And doesn't amount to the greatest present problem?
<< And would cease entirely if there were no Americans there?>>
You're missing the point here, plane. And frankly, if you can't keep up with even as irrational a mind as mine, I am starting to worry about you.
The point of the thread was whether the American invasion would affect "terrorist" recruitment, not whether sectarian violence would affect it. OF COURSE, Iraqi-Iraqi violence matters, perhaps it might be the greatest present problem (although that's highly questionable) and probably it WOULD cease after awhile if the Americans just left - - but the sectarian violence would not affect recruitment in anti-American "terrorist" groups except incidentally.
]The American invasion, with the huge toll of dead Iraqis, maimed Iraqis, destroyed homes, raped, imprisoned and tortured Iraqis, obviously had to create huge anti-American feelings and it's inevitable that some of this will translate into increased "terrorist" recruitment figures.
-
How about looking at the psychology of terrorism as a part of the analysis? I found a particularly good document:
http://www.safe-democracy.org/docs/CdM-Series-on-Terrorism-Vol-1.pdf
This is an excerpt of the findings by the International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security, held in Madrid a year after the Madrid bombings. Their stated intention in making this analysis:
The Causes and Underlying Factors of Terrorism
To be effective in overcoming terrorism, we need to understand why it occurs. This is not because we empathise with the terrorists or because we want to give in to their demands, but simply because any effective strategy against terrorism requires knowing what motivates this form of violence against innocent civilians.
How important are poverty and inequalities as causes of terrorism?
Poverty per se is not a direct cause of terrorism. Macro-studies show that terrorism can occur anywhere, but is more common in developing societies, rather than in poor or rich countries, and is most likely to emerge in societies characterized by rapid modernization (Alberto Abadie, Tore Bjorgo). Economic change creates conditions that are conducive for instability, the emergence of militant movements and extremist ideologies. In the Islamic world, for example, the more traditional segments of the population
are disoriented by sweeping socio-economic change, and are therefore especially susceptible to movements that strengthen threatened identities, provide explanations, and give believers a sense of empowerment (Yigal Carmon).
A pervasive risk factor in developing societies is the so-called youth age bulge, that is, a substantial increase in the proportional size of the young male population facing insecure employment prospects. Within countries, the groups that support and give rise to terrorist movements usually are relatively disadvantaged because of class, ethnic, or religious cleavages. At the individual level, the leaders of militant movements are better educated and of higher status than most of the population from which they come. This, however, is true of leaders of almost all political organizations (Ekkart Zimmermann, Jeroen Gunning, Jitka Maleckova). A significant number of activists are similarly well educated, even though many face uncertain employment opportunities (resulting in what many experts call ‘status 20 dissonance’). Recruits are also drawn from among poorer and less-educated youth – those with a lack of opportunities to complete secondary or higher education, or unable to find good jobs. Militant movements frequently draw in what Bjorgo calls fellow-travellers and criminals – people motivated by social needs and pressures and chances for personal gain rather than ideology.
How do political conflicts shift to and from terrorism?
Ethno-nationalist and revolutionary terrorist movements – such as the Kosovar militants, Chechen
rebels and Italy’s Red Brigades – usually emerge in the context of larger political conflicts that are
centred on the grievances of groups that see themselves as economically or politically marginalized.
For these movements, terrorism is a tactic in a larger campaign which is used and then discarded
depending on opportunities and costs.
In what circumstances do militant movements shift to terrorist strategies? A general principle is that semi-repressive regimes contribute to the escalation of political conflicts to terrorism. Their repression is not consistent enough to destroy terrorist organizations, while their reforms are insufficient to persuade militants to give up strategies of violence (Zimmermann). Also common is a division of labour between more conventional political participation by parties and social movements, and the employment of violent means by other groups in the same domain. Schmid cites a recent study, which show that 124 out of 399 terrorist groups are affiliates of, or splits from, political parties.
Another general principle is that some militant groups choose terror tactics in the expectation that governments will increase repression, leading to a shift in public support from the government to the terrorists’ cause (Joshua Sinai, Schmid). Radicalization and a wave of terrorist attacks also may result from a specific hostile event that calls for revenge – for example the ‘Bloody Sunday’ shootings by British soldiers in Derry-City in 1972, Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa Mosque in the year 2000, and the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
In other cases, radicalization is the result of ‘spillover’ from conflicts involving kindred in neighbouring states. Lyubov Mincheva notes that the nationalist rebellion of Kosovo Albanians in 1998-99 provided encouragement, arms, and agents for subsequent terrorist campaigns by Albanians in the Presevo region of Serbia and in Macedonia. Diasporas may also promote terrorist tactics. Gabriel Sheffer observes that 27 of the 50 most active terrorist organizations today are either segments of ethno-national or religious diasporas, or are supported by them. Kurds, Palestinians, Sikhs, Tamils, and many other migrant peoples are motivated by discrimination and repression against kindred in their homelands – and elsewhere – to organize and support violent resistance, especially when they see that non-violent political action is ineffective. They do not expect to ‘win’ by supporting violence but rather to dramatize injustices and create imperatives for reform.
-
In what circumstances do militant movements shift to terrorist strategies? A general principle is that semi-repressive regimes contribute to the escalation of political conflicts to terrorism. Their repression is not consistent enough to destroy terrorist organizations, while their reforms are insufficient to persuade militants to give up strategies of violence (Zimmermann).
This sounds reasonable , and would fit the situation in Iraq because it is in a transitional state , all the worse because the transition is very painfull and rapid.
-
...snip....
I've only time for a quick glance, but I'll endeavor to read this more thoroughly and respond to it later this PM or tomorrow. Thanks for the postings Miss Rational mind ;)
-
Boy Miss Henny, I sure hope you're not trying to tell me I need to understand how the terrorist feels, and that if I'm nice to him/her, and perhaps start condemning....oh let's say Israel, they'll stop killing innocent men, women, & children? You see, I've concluded that militant islam (Islamofascism is actually what it is) is a cancer, not just to Peaceful Muslims, but to the entire globe. Much like Nazi Germany was to the world in the early 40's, so too is militant Islam becoming. As a health professional, to deal with a malignancy, you can't reason with it, you can't placate it, you can't appease, you surgically remove it. Sounds mean, not very compassionate, sure doesn't seem to take much thought into why terrorists are acting like terrorists. But actions speak louder than words to me. The actions of folks like AlQeada, coupled with their public declarations, make it crystal clear their intentions & goals
But, and I've said this before, the U.S can't deal with this alone. The U.S. military won't win this war alone, or even with some our coaltion forces. The only way this war is winnable, is from the inside out....a recognition, and committment by the Muslim population to not only denounce those elements who have hijacked the peaceful religion of Islam, and mutated the passages of the Koran to justify their murdering of women & children, but active involvement in either taking these radicals out themselves, or at minimum, passing along vital intel as to where, how many, plans, etc. Does that put those Muslims helping us, more at risk for retaliation, if it's found?, absolutely. So, will they? Which takes us back to the U.S. in trying to deal with this growing malignancy from the outside in........and that's not going to win this war against militant Islam. Yea, it took out a potential for them getting their hands on some of Saddam's WMD, which in turn has made this country safer in the short term, but the long term is still up for grabs.
Which is one of the reasons I've supported Bush in this cause, as it's clear to me he does recognize the big picture, and the long term ramifications/repercussions, if we don't do something
-
Boy Miss Henny, I sure hope you're not trying to tell me I need to understand how the terrorist feels, and that if I'm nice to him/her, and perhaps start condemning....oh let's say Israel, they'll stop killing innocent men, women, & children? You see, I've concluded that militant islam (Islamofascism is actually what it is) is a cancer, not just to Peaceful Muslims, but to the entire globe. Much like Nazi Germany was to the world in the early 40's, so too is militant Islam becoming. As a health professional, to deal with a malignancy, you can't reason with it, you can't placate it, you can't appease, you surgically remove it. Sounds mean, not very compassionate, sure doesn't seem to take much thought into why terrorists are acting like terrorists. But actions speak louder than words to me. The actions of folks like AlQeada, coupled with their public declarations, make it crystal clear their intentions & goals
First, in my original post, I put the stated mission of the committee in Madrid that did this study on the psychology of terrorism, and it expressly addressed your concern. Again:
To be effective in overcoming terrorism, we need to understand why it occurs. This is not because we empathise with the terrorists or because we want to give in to their demands, but simply because any effective strategy against terrorism requires knowing what motivates this form of violence against innocent civilians.
The point is that all deviant forms of behavior have a psychology. Police investigators profile the psychology of serial killers - I imagine the reason is to help them root out serial killers and stop their actions... not because they want to applaud their work or give them a big hug.
And I'm not talking about Osama bin Laden or other leaders of such groups. I'm talking about BT's "Jamil." Why does Jamil join a terrorist organization? What causes the development of this extremism in the mind of a young man?
If you can't concede at least that much, I will become concerned about your own rationality in this discussion. ::)
-
Yet Bt's "Jamil", is looking to respond in revenge, not in an epiphamy of what's happened to his religion. "Jamil" also has several options, depending on who he believes is responsible for the deaths of his loved ones. Again, if it's made public, and made clear, by the Muslim community and it's leaders, as to the causes of these homicide bombers, IEDs, and exploding vehicles in crowded marketplaces, "Jamil" is much more likely to join his country's military or police force, in order to facilitate his revenge. Wouldn't you agree?
-
Yet Bt's "Jamil", is looking to respond in revenge, not in an epiphamy of what's happened to his religion. "Jamil" also has several options, depending on who he believes is responsible for the deaths of his loved ones. Again, if it's made public, and made clear, by the Muslim community and it's leaders, as to the causes of these homicide bombers, IEDs, and exploding vehicles in crowded marketplaces, "Jamil" is much more likely to join his country's military or police force, in order to facilitate his revenge. Wouldn't you agree?
Well, no I wouldn't specifically agree... or disagree for that matter. This isn't black and white, Sirs. But I'm a bit confused about your reference to religion in your first sentence. Not all terrorism is based in religion. Not all terrorism is based in revenge. There are unique circumstances in different cases, which were outlined to some degree in the report that I pasted earlier.
Further, while these resistance movements in Iraq are attributed to Shi'a or Sunni factions, the fact is, these movements are more political than religious, regardless of what labels they give themselves. What a lot of people don't understand is how religion permeates everyday life in the Middle East. While Americans are baffled as whether to say "Merry Christmas" versus "Happy Holidays," Muslims hardly speak a sentence without God's name in it. Even the Muslims that aren't that religious per se (don't pray every day, 5 times a day, etc.) invoke God's name constantly. Give someone good news, they say "Mash'allah" (Praise be to God). Tell someone you'll see them tomorrow, they respond, "Insh'allah" (If God wills it). To an extent, it's simply cultural and how the language has developed in the Muslim world. (I hope what I'm saying here makes sense.)
And we know that there are "good guys" over there who are volunteering to work in the police, army and security forces. But not everyone is an "honor student." You can't simply say that because it makes sense to you that they should do these things, that it makes sense to them, particularly for gullible young people who may be easily influenced.
-
Well, no I wouldn't specifically agree... or disagree for that matter. This isn't black and white, Sirs. But I'm a bit confused about your reference to religion in your first sentence. Not all terrorism is based in religion. Not all terrorism is based in revenge.
Well of course not. I'm not referring to any terrorist, I'm referring to the Iraq discussion, and the terrorism that currently is the most dangerous we've had to face, Islamofascism, or militant islam for those who just can't handle calling it for what it is. And it indeed has a distinct religious component, yet very little to do with revenge. Revenge is simply in reference to "Jamil", and what might be prompting him to join "something" in order to bring that concept of refence to actually implimentation
Further, while these resistance movements in Iraq are attributed to Shi'a or Sunni factions, the fact is, these movements are more political than religious, regardless of what labels they give themselves.
OK, you must have missed my other post, where I was referencing if Jamil was grasping if his revenge was being spearheaded by simple sectarian violence, or being facilitated by AlQeada/militant Islam stirring the factions. One is more political, the other more religious
What a lot of people don't understand is how religion permeates everyday life in the Middle East.
OK, now you're confusing me. In the same post, you're telling me that the Shi'a & Suuni violence is largely political, yet religion permeates everyday life in Middle Easterners. So, which would it be?
While Americans are baffled as whether to say "Merry Christmas" versus "Happy Holidays," Muslims hardly speak a sentence without God's name in it. Even the Muslims that aren't that religious per se (don't pray every day, 5 times a day, etc.) invoke God's name constantly.
Which brings us back full circle to what militant Islam is trying to do, co-opt and mutate the message from Allah, justifying their acts of murdering innocent men, women and children in the thousands. Which is why it becomes absolutely necessary on the part of the Muslim community to publicly denounce groups like AlQeada & Hamas, and actively work against them, IF we're going to win this war against that mutated ideology. We did it once before in the 40's. We can do it again.
-
C'mon Sirs, can't you just read my mind? LOL. Sorry, I guess I wasn't that clear in what I was trying to say. Let me try again.
Well of course not. I'm not referring to any terrorist, I'm referring to the Iraq discussion, and the terrorism that currently is the most dangerous we've had to face, Islamofascism, or militant islam for those who just can't handle calling it for what it is. And it indeed has a distinct religious component, yet very little to do with revenge. Revenge is simply in reference to "Jamil", and what might be prompting him to join "something" in order to bring that concept of refence to actually implimentation
Ok, this is where we disagree a bit - the roots of terrorism in Iraq. I don't agree with you that what we are facing is necessarily inspired just by - or even mostly by - religion. What I was trying to say is that while these movements seem religious on the surface, many are just political. That is why I was trying to give the example of how religion permeates every aspect of life here - even for the non-religious.
Here's an example - you might find someone here who drinks, fornicates, lies, cheats and steals, and they are still going to invoke God's name in nearly everything they say - it's cultural, and the way language has developed.
Or perhaps another way to say it is that this is a culture that isn't familiar with the idea of separation of church and state. These are interchangeable for many, and even when a movement is purely political, it's still going to likely have a religious name.
These examples... I'm not talking about always - yes there are many fanatical religious movements, even in Iraq. But in a nutshell, I believe that many are simply political movements, and Americans typically can't tell the difference.
OK, now you're confusing me. In the same post, you're telling me that the Shi'a & Suuni violence is largely political, yet religion permeates everyday life in Middle Easterners. So, which would it be?
See my attempt to clarify above.
-
Ok, this is where we disagree a bit - the roots of terrorism in Iraq. I don't agree with you that what we are facing is necessarily inspired just by - or even mostly by - religion. What I was trying to say is that while these movements seem religious on the surface, many are just political. That is why I was trying to give the example of how religion permeates every aspect of life here - even for the non-religious.
I understand the point your making, however my point still stands in that whatever "political" efforts are pushing the sectarian violence in Iraq, the "elephant in the room", continues to be the religious effort by militant Islam, that either directly uses terrorist attacks to push their agenda, or indirectly facilitating the sectarian violence to promote continued instability, stir emotion, and perhaps rally folks with that emotion to their religious call of Jihad.
I'm not talking about always - yes there are many fanatical religious movements, even in Iraq. But in a nutshell, I believe that many are simply political movements, and Americans typically can't tell the difference.
Well, as I've referenced, I concede some of the Shi'a vs Suuni sectarian violence has political ramifications, though to be honest, I see religion fostering much of that animosity as well. Look at the reactions when representative mosques are bombed. Then again, who wouldn't get upset when their spiritual sanctuary is attacked? And perhaps that's just this American not able to tell the difference. The point being that I think your reference of how religion permeates so much of Muslim culture, is dead on accurate. Which again brings me back to the threat of militant Islam, and what's going to be required to win that war.
-
I did wish to take a moment to thank those that have added to this discussion, including those who disagree with the war, which includes H. I appreciate your time and energy, and especially to those who made the effort to rationally debate these issues 8)
-
Coming in late, I won't try to pick up the thread but just offer a few thoughts on the topic. There's very much to be said. The first thing I'll note is that Gary has restricted examination to the policy realm (efficacious or not?) while omitting law and morality among other salient considerations. Yet, from each of those perspectives, armed with perfect hindsight, I can now say safely that the invasion ab initio was unwise, unlawful and immoral. From the vantage of hindsight, a very important qualifier, there was no just cause for war under the widely employed "just war theory." That set of considerations dovetails almost in mirror image to the dictates of international law, namely, the UN Charter ... and the clear intent behind the authorization for war as a matter of domestic law. I am not one to eschew a true preemptive war or strike, such as, hypothetically, attacking North Korea massively to blunt a planned and staged all-out attack on the South with the North's most notorious weapons. Leaving aside the right to rise to the defense of others, which I am virtually certain the Charter recognizes, especially when treaty obligations are involved, we would face in such a situation a virtually certain attack on some 35,000-40,000 American troops. Very importantly, this right to preemptively strike would wax and wane with the certainty or uncertainty of our intelligence and other means of discerning enemy intent. Not only must the threat be imminent ("soon to come") but virtually certain to come. In this way the preemptive strike truly lives up to its nature as a species of defensive attack, the classic example of which is a counterstrike after attack. The farther you get from the two pillars of justification (imminence and certainty), the farther you get from the idea of a defensive strike as contemplated by the UN Charter. This is important, for the reasons I've just hinted at, in this way: the more remote the threat, the less it threatens; the less certain the threat, the more you risk killing innocents (theirs or ours) for no good reason at all. Using these criteria as our benchmarks for entry into the war in the first place, even on the information known at the time of invasion, there was no justification, as opposed to alarmism, for an attack on Iraq. I understand the politics of the situation and how it drove policy, but the undeniable facts is that no justification for the attack, properly viewed, existed then and certainly not in hindsight. WILL CONTINUE LATER.
-
Well Ed, your rational mind is always appreciated, even when it's wrong ;) Point taken on your opinion on if the war was justified or not, though that was not the purpose of the thread. The purpose was to try and examine if the actions taken in Iraq have facilitated or have slowed down the threat referred to as militant islam, in its various manifestations, such as AlQeada & Hamas. At this point it's pure speculation, since we don't have a parallel reality we can compare it to, like they can in Star Trek. BT's offered some excellent points, as has Miss Henny. So the point of this thread was to remove the idiocy of those who think Bush is Hitler, that he stole the election, that he alone knew Saddam didn't have any WMD, but took us to war anyways, and instead apply rational thinking as to what effect our going into Iraq (justified or not) has had on our war against terror (Militant Islam)
-
The invasion of Iraq WAS about the oil.
There were lots of places easier to defeat that had more severe human rights abuses than Iraq: Turkmenistan, Burma, Sudan, to name three, that would have been easier to defeat.
Sudan even has some oil.
But none of them tried to kill Juniorbush's daddy, Olebush. And Iraq had more oil.
If you don't think it was about the oil, Sirs, then you are the irrational one.
-
'...........not one to eschew a true preemptive war or strike, such as, hypothetically, attacking North Korea massively to blunt a planned and staged all-out attack on the South with the North's most notorious weapons. Leaving aside the right to rise to the defense of others, which I am virtually certain the Charter recognizes, especially when treaty obligations are involved, we would face in such a situation a virtually certain attack on some 35,000-40,000 American troops. Very importantly, this right to preemptively strike would wax and wane with the certainty or uncertainty of our intelligence and other means of discerning enemy intent. Not only must the threat be imminent ("soon to come") but virtually certain to come. ........"
If one were certain of a planned attack in the future , wouldn't that certainty be enough?
Or would it also be necessacery to wait around untill it were also immanent?
I would like to argue that the ceertainty is key and the immanence is not.
-
The invasion of Iraq WAS about the oil......
As I already prefaced Xo, this thread is for the rationally minded. But by all means, start your own with the delusional notion it was all about the oil, then explain why we're not in direct control of it, nor directly pulling it out, right into our own tankers.
-
<< So the point of this thread was to remove the idiocy of those who think Bush is Hitler, that he stole the election, that he alone knew Saddam didn't have any WMD, but took us to war anyways, and instead apply rational thinking as to what effect our going into Iraq (justified or not) has had on our war against terror (Militant Islam) >>
I think we should remove the idiocy of the strawman builder as well. There is nobody in this group who thinks Bush is Hitler. I suspect this is a veiled swipe at me, so I will state once again that Bush does not resemble Hitler in any way other than his disregard of innocent human life, which is a trait shared by many other psychopaths too numerous to mention here. In all other respects (courage in battle, oratorical brilliance, literary accomplishment, public relations genius, drive and initiative for starters) Bush is clearly Hitler's inferior in every respect. Bush DID steal the election as most impartial observers would agree, and that's a crying shame, but how a failure to see this obvious fact qualifies one as a "rational" mind is and will always remain a great mystery to me. Finally it is not my position or anyone else's that Bush "alone" knew there were no WMD in Iraq, but that Bush and his entire cabinet had no credible grounds for either believing that there were WMD in Iraq or that such WMD as Iraq might have had constituted an immediate danger to anyone or justified an immediate invasion.
I would say that it is obviously a clear sign of a rational mind to believe that Bush is an evil little shit and the cause of an enormous amount of otherwise perfectly avoidable human suffering in the world; that he stole the 2000 election and probably the 2004 election as well; and that he had no real reason to invade Iraq or to continue the occupation other than the oil.
Your attempt to invite discussion only by "rational minds" defined (by no less an authority than yourself) so as to exclude the most rational people in the group is hilarious.
-
By all means, Mr (Bush is a moronic version of Hitler) Tee, initiate your own delus....oh, I mean rational thread, explaining to us all, how everyone practically on God's green earth was mistaken about Saddam's WMD, but Bush alone knew there were none, and took us to war anyways. That would be an entertaining start.
And apologies to your ego, but the reference for seeking rational dialog, wasn't aiimed specifically at you. One more time, it's referencing any and all who have adopted the illogical & irrational concepts that either Bush lied us into war, that Bush stole the election, that neo-cons were behind 911, that Jews run everything, that the media is a tool of the right wing, oh yea, or that our military is one big mass of murdering rapists. Garbage like that. Folks afflicted with such severe BDS, to the point they can't think straight. (http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_11_10.gif)
-
<<how everyone practically on God's green earth was mistaken about Saddam's WMD, but Bush alone knew there were none, and took us to war anyways. That would be an entertaining start. >>
Uh, as I said, if you just read my last post (umm, you CAN read, can't you, sirs?) it is extremely unlikely that ANYONE including Bush was "mistaken" about Saddam's non-existent WMD. One day, sirs, I will explain to you the concept of a "pretext," and then the word "phony" and then, finally, the concept of a "phony pretext" and you will begin to understand why most folks today think your moron President is a liar. Till then, sirs, maybe you could just content yourself with reading very carefully what people write so that you won't (inadvertently, I am sure) continue to misquote them.
<<One more time, it's referencing any and all who have adopted the illogical & irrational concepts that either Bush lied us into war, that Bush stole the election . . . >>
Well, since it's clear beyond doubt that Bush did lie you into war AND stole the election, it's starting to look more and more that YOU are the irrational party to this discussion.
<< . . . that neo-cons were behind 911>>
not proven, and I certainly have not "adopted" that conclusion although I certainly do keep an open mind on it.
<<. . . . that Jews run everything>>
PLEEEEZE, sirs, only SOME of us run everything. (Note to self: better explain to this moron this is a joke otherwise he'll have an apoplexy seizure)
<< . . . that the media is a tool of the right wing>>
There are excellent studies proving exactly that. You could start with the New York Times coverage of the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq, for example.
<< oh yea, or that our military is one big mass of murdering rapists.>>
They're thugs and their record for torture and abuse of prisoners is the worst that it's ever been. There is no previous conflict in recent history that even comes close. And for the record, the blame starts at the top. The troops reflect the quality of their leadership. If the leaders don't give a damn, the troops will do what they can get away with. However "one big mass of murdering rapists" might be giving them more credit than they deserve. They're soldiers. Period.
-
And maybe someday you'll even be able to rationally explain how Bush knew there were no WMD, while nearly everyone else, including messers Clinton, Gore, Pelosi, Edwards, the UN, France, Russia, Germany, etc., etc., etc, were all just mistaken about them. That'll be a neat trick. The rest of your rant, is pretty much the reason I wanted this thread to be responded to by the sane
-
Question: Rightly or wrongly having entered Iraq, has the invasion made things worse, as it relates to increasing terrorist recruits & their potential attacks upon the U.S.?
has our entering Iraq & taking out Saddam, been a big mistake on the overall war on Terror?
Yes, in my view. If one can believe anything the intelligence community says then, according to a National Intelligence Estimate released last year, they think so too. “The Iraq conflict has become a cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.†“the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operativesâ€.
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf
-
Question: Rightly or wrongly having entered Iraq, has the invasion made things worse, as it relates to increasing terrorist recruits & their potential attacks upon the U.S.?
It has increased the number who will sympathize with militant Islam, yes.
I realize Radical Islam was going to gain in terrorist membership, but did our taking out Saddam and the WMD threat speed things up or slow it down? But from a common sense stand point (again referring to the rationally minded) has our entering Iraq & taking out Saddam, been a big mistake on the overall war on Terror?
Well, that would imply that I believe the "War on Terror" is not a mistake unto itself. It is. It is a ridiculous way to approach a situation that is not a war at all. Iraq is not a "front" of the "War on Terror" it is a nation in a power vacuum because we removed its government infrastructure (rightly or wrongly, it is irrelevant at this point). The current situation in Iraq was predicted far in advance of the current date.
The "War on Terror" is acceptable as far as increasing security on airplane flights and increasing efficiency of intelligence information gathering, sharing, and cooperation between agencies (which is not what Homeland Security has really done). Other than that it is an exaggerated and rather useless approach to a problem that is not all that significant.
-
<<Other than that it [ the war on terror] is an exaggerated and rather useless approach to a problem that is not all that significant.>>
I disagree with the "rather useless" comment. It's a brilliant public relations ploy to justify a neocon plan for ruthless self-aggrandizement that has already put the U.S.A. in a position (once it has crushed, if it can, the local Resistance forces) to control the second largest proven oil reserves in the world and has them on track to grab even more in Iran.
-
If one can believe anything the intelligence community says then, according to a National Intelligence Estimate released last year, they think so too. “The Iraq conflict has become a cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.†“the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operativesâ€.
That's a good point Lyndon. Ironically, it was the NIE, who in even more a concensus, concluded the presence of stockpiles of WMD. So the conclusion 1 could draw from that is the possibility that they're a tad off on ther conclusions, this time around as well. "Possibly" being the operable word, not "are", and "could" vs "should"
-
It has increased the number who will sympathize with militant Islam, yes.
OK, that's 1 opinion. Fair enough
I realize Radical Islam was going to gain in terrorist membership, but did our taking out Saddam and the WMD threat speed things up or slow it down? But from a common sense stand point has our entering Iraq & taking out Saddam, been a big mistake on the overall war on Terror?
Well, that would imply that I believe the "War on Terror" is not a mistake unto itself. It is. It is a ridiculous way to approach a situation that is not a war at all.
Ok, here's where we kind of step into it a bit....not a war at all?? Oh yea, I forgot, you tend to minimize the threat of militant Islam, so then it really doesn't require a war to deal with it. In that vane, you are being consistent. Our biggest point of contention then is probably how we see the threat. I see it as a repeating of history, a growing new fascist movement, with a religious twist. You on the other hand see militant Islam as.......... well, I'll let you explain it, and the threat it doesn't pose
Iraq is not a "front" of the "War on Terror" it is a nation in a power vacuum because we removed its government infrastructure (rightly or wrongly, it is irrelevant at this point).
Perhaps not "the" front, but obviously "a" front. And the vacuum caused by our taking out a potential WMD transfer to folks like Alqeada would likely have been filled with a new military shiite faction, perhaps being run right out of Tehran. IMHO, it would have been reprehensively immoral as well as militarily illogical to have left the vacuum as is, following the accomplished mission of taking out Saddam
The "War on Terror" is acceptable as far as increasing security on airplane flights and increasing efficiency of intelligence information gathering, sharing, and cooperation between agencies (which is not what Homeland Security has really done). Other than that it is an exaggerated and rather useless approach to a problem that is not all that significant.
Anything but actual military intervention, right? :-\
-
<<Ok, here's where we kind of step into it a bit....not a war at all?? Oh yea, I forgot, you tend to minimize the threat of militant Islam, so then it really doesn't require a war to deal with it.>>
"Militant Islam," lest anyone forget, is an ideology. Of course, so was Naziism. The difference between the two is that the Nazis had a state, and that state had a land mass and a very formidable military organization.
Militant Islam, as an ideology minus a state, a land mass and an armed force, can not be combatted by military force. There is no military force in history that can defeat an idea. Military force kills some people and forces others into obedience to the force when it it is confronting them. What it can't do is change the minds of people who believe in the ideology, unless (as in Naziism) the ideology itself was predicated on military superiority and racial supremacy. Since militant Islam believes only in the power of God, it is unlikely that any series of military defeats will convince any of them to change their belief system.
-
What it can't do is change the minds of people who believe in the ideology, unless (as in Naziism) the ideology itself was predicated on military superiority and racial supremacy. Since militant Islam believes only in the power of God, it is unlikely that any series of military defeats will convince any of them to change their belief system.
The Natzis had a lot of confiene in their eventual victory their mistakes caused a lot of them to die.
The Islamic extremeists have brought a lot of death to themselves and they are not even close to finished.
The had a large and growing army , a country in accessable to their enemys, large economic resorces.
This has been reduced to an appealing idea and no more.
-
Ok, here's where we kind of step into it a bit....not a war at all?? Oh yea, I forgot, you tend to minimize the threat of militant Islam, so then it really doesn't require a war to deal with it. In that vane, you are being consistent. Our biggest point of contention then is probably how we see the threat. I see it as a repeating of history, a growing new fascist movement, with a religious twist. You on the other hand see militant Islam as.......... well, I'll let you explain it, and the threat it doesn't pose
Militant Islam is what it is. Really, militant terrorism of any radical ideology is a representation of marginalization, injustice, oppression, and the loss of dignity (or at least the perception of such). Think of riots throughout history and that will generally be an underlying cause (with perhaps some notable exceptions for bread riots).
Nothing can justify terrorism. So don't get me wrong. Yet, military actions, bombing, "collateral damage," those types of actions only lead to more people coming to understand the message of the fringe ideologies. If your house has been reduced to rubble, your family killed, and your holy shrine run over by a tank, then you are going to look at these people who are talking about injustice and loss of dignity with a whole new sense of respect. "Damn, I thought these guys were nutters, but now they make a lot of sense."
So if you are asking me what I think, then no, I don't think war is an appropriate response at all. I think we, both as a nation and a member of the international community, need to begin looking at what makes people turn violent, angry, and seek such horrible revenge even at the cost of their own lives.
We need to address the underlying problems that have led so many to hatred and desperation. We cannot answer the violence of terrorism with the violence of war. We have to demonstrate a different path, a better path.
Perhaps not "the" front, but obviously "a" front. And the vacuum caused by our taking out a potential WMD transfer to folks like Alqeada would likely have been filled with a new military shiite faction, perhaps being run right out of Tehran. IMHO, it would have been reprehensively immoral as well as militarily illogical to have left the vacuum as is, following the accomplished mission of taking out Saddam
I can't disagree with your last sentence, as reprehensible as it is to have been led into an unjust war and then stuck in to clean up the mess. It has little if anything to do with terrorism though. Iraq is a war about Iraq and the people there. It is a nation of arbitrary borders and little sense of identity.
Anything but actual military intervention, right?
As I said above, in this case military force may be counter-productive.
-
<<The Natzis had a lot of confiene in their eventual victory their mistakes caused a lot of them to die.>>
As always, you focus on the peripheral issues and ignore the main thrust of the argument. Whether or not the Nazis made mistakes causing a lot of them to die is immaterial. Against Russia, the U.S., Great Britain and France, they had no chance to win. At the end of the day, what caused them to lose faith in Naziism was that a theory of a Master Race destined to rule the earth was inconsistent with the actual facts of ruined cities, decimated armies and the inability to hold their ground against enemy attacks. There was no Master Race, or if there were, it wasn't them.
<<The Islamic extremeists have brought a lot of death to themselves and they are not even close to finished.>>
It would obviously be more accurate to say that their enemies have brought a lot of death to them. Which will not lessen their beliefs, since they welcome martyrdom. The fact that their enemies can kill them will not convince them that they are wrong because their beliefs do not involve being unkillable or invincible.
<<The had a large and growing army , a country in accessable to their enemys, large economic resorces.>>
You are delusional. They never had a large and growing army, that is your paranoid fantasy. They had no army, just a cadre of young men willing to die for their belief, which is still growing. They had no country inaccessible to their enemies and in fact when their enemies did access it, they just faded away to fight elsewhere. Large economic resources are and always will be accessible to them. Arabs with money will give to the cause one way or another. There is no evidence that I am aware of that these guys are short of funds.
<<This has been reduced to an appealing idea and no more.>>
Militant Islam is more appealing than ever. The only armed force it needs are resourceful and determined young men unafraid to die for their cause because of an idea. That idea is something that no army can ever stop. Which is why it's foolish and delusional to fight a war on "terrorism" (which is nothing more than an idea and the fearlessness of its supporters) with an army.
-
I will amend my remarks from last night. To be justified a so-called preemptive strike must have a TRIPLE support: imminence (that is, soon to occur, otherwise events may intervene to change the intent and thus the threat); a high level of certainty; and a certain degree of severity (that is, launching a full-scale attack on a foreign enemy to prevent the murder of one spy would not be wise or congruous).
Turning to the Iraq War solely in terms of its efficacy for US policy, we cannot ignore as a first consideration the great amount of lives lost due to the initiative, most completely innocent lives. Then, hands down, it can be asserted without fear of rebuttal that the war has stoked terrorist recruiting and built average-Muslim sympathy for that cause. Further, the region has become destabilized and will restabilize with Iran preeminent in the region, which represents a direct threat to our interests but also the potential for further regional strife as the dominant Sunni states bristle at and perhaps react aggressively to the new Shiite hegemony in the region, which those Sunni states very well may take as a serious threat.
-
"...and a certain degree of severity (that is, launching a full-scale attack on a foreign enemy to prevent the murder of one spy would not be wise or congruous)."
Should we tell them what this limit is?
You can kill one spy and we will do nothing , if you kill sixty four we will start to get alarmed, if you kill 291 we will not retaliate much , but if you kill more than a thousand we will bomb the stuffing out of you.
Seems to me that after an announcement like that there would be a lot of killing right up to the limit.
-
I feel a little bad, in that A, I let this thread peter out, when it really was for the most part a rational discussion going on, and B, I did write up a nice response to this particular post by Js, but apparently it got eaten b the cybermonsters that periodically show their claws. So, I'll take another stab with tackling both targets with this post
Our biggest point of contention then is probably how we see the threat. I see it as a repeating of history, a growing new fascist movement, with a religious twist. You on the other hand see militant Islam as.......... well, I'll let you explain it, and the threat it doesn't pose
Militant Islam is what it is. Really, militant terrorism of any radical ideology is a representation of marginalization, injustice, oppression, and the loss of dignity (or at least the perception of such). Think of riots throughout history and that will generally be an underlying cause (with perhaps some notable exceptions for bread riots).
OK, so far so good
Nothing can justify terrorism. So don't get me wrong.
We're 2 for 2
Yet, military actions, bombing, "collateral damage," those types of actions only lead to more people coming to understand the message of the fringe ideologies.
NOT, if as I have been saying all along, the Muslim leaders are able to effectively educate the difference between accidental death involved in collateral damage vs targeted death at the hands of those who have hijacked their religion. Yea, yea, I know, death is death, and a father's not going to care how, just who. The point remains if both can be explained, it's much more likely that an understanding of the message that there is a war, and it's their own radical elements fostering, festering, and facilitating it.
If your house has been reduced to rubble, your family killed, and your holy shrine run over by a tank, then you are going to look at these people who are talking about injustice and loss of dignity with a whole new sense of respect. "Damn, I thought these guys were nutters, but now they make a lot of sense."
As is the case that most of the deaths are mass murdering car bombs & suicide bombers in the most populated locations, such as market places, schools, mosques, etc., again it's more plausible that the "nutters" can be indentified as those that have mutated the message of Islam vs the accidental death caused via collateral damage, and that with their assistance, can help bring an end to their movement, and thus reduce, if not completely abolish the rubble causing tank
So if you are asking me what I think, then no, I don't think war is an appropriate response at all. I think we, both as a nation and a member of the international community, need to begin looking at what makes people turn violent, angry, and seek such horrible revenge even at the cost of their own lives.
With all due respect Js, they've already let us know why they (Radical Muslims/Islamofascists) are angry, and no, it's not because of supposed interferrence in their ways or support of Israel. For some yes, that's the reason. But for the core of militant Islam, with they're actions, rhetoric, and claims of Koran justification, it's because we're not Muslim. And because we're the infidels, who dare not embrace Allah and the ways of the Koran, we are to be wiped out, if we can't be made to convert or be subjugated to it. Does it mean it's doable, like Tee keeps trying to reference? Highly doubtful. What it does mean is a continued growing perceived win-win movement where they kill as many "infidels" as possible, and if they get killed in the process, lots of virgins await them. Yea, it's an irrational mindset, but radical fundamentalists of any religion will latch on to those passages of killing non-believers, and believe they are doing God's work. They're condemned when they do it in the name of the Christian God, and they are condemned when they do it in the name of Allah. Difference being, there's a massive growing element of 1 that is not occuring in the other.
We need to address the underlying problems that have led so many to hatred and desperation. We cannot answer the violence of terrorism with the violence of war. We have to demonstrate a different path, a better path.
Alas my friend, you can not appease militant islamic terrorists. You can not placate, rationalize, and try to "understand why they feel the way they feel". We seem to be trying to discuss 2 different things. I think you're trying to reference the "plight of poor Arabs/Palestinians", as if they alone are the foundation to militant Islam. I'm actually referencing militant Islamics, who can be poor, middle class or upper class. They're a mutation of a very peaceful religion, who's focus is on killing the infidels. The "why" is because we dare to not embrace the Muslim way, and convert to it. And the only way of dealing with them is surgical removal. But you're right in 1 vane. It will take more than "the violence of war". It has to come from within. It has to come from the Muslim community. They have to rise up and condemn these factions, and take a much more active roll in taking them out. Yet your recent references of how these country's and their leaders really can't do that, because of geo-political reasons, leaves us nothing BUT war in dealing with militant Islam. Did you take that into consideration? You are removing the most important non-violent option of dealing with militant Islam, yet condemn our use of violence, when it's all that's left
IMHO, it would have been reprehensively immoral as well as militarily illogical to have left the vacuum as is, following the accomplished mission of taking out Saddam
I can't disagree with your last sentence, as reprehensible as it is to have been led into an unjust war and then stuck in to clean up the mess. It has little if anything to do with terrorism though. Iraq is a war about Iraq and the people there. It is a nation of arbitrary borders and little sense of identity.
Your opinion of this being an unjust war is duely noted
Anything but actual military intervention, right?
As I said above, in this case military force may be counter-productive.
In which case, I wholly and rationally disagree, but appreciate your comments none the less
-
I will amend my remarks from last night. To be justified a so-called preemptive strike must have a TRIPLE support: imminence (that is, soon to occur, otherwise events may intervene to change the intent and thus the threat); a high level of certainty; and a certain degree of severity (that is, launching a full-scale attack on a foreign enemy to prevent the murder of one spy would not be wise or congruous).
Turning to the Iraq War solely in terms of its efficacy for US policy, we cannot ignore as a first consideration the great amount of lives lost due to the initiative, most completely innocent lives. Then, hands down, it can be asserted without fear of rebuttal that the war has stoked terrorist recruiting and built average-Muslim sympathy for that cause. Further, the region has become destabilized and will restabilize with Iran preeminent in the region, which represents a direct threat to our interests but also the potential for further regional strife as the dominant Sunni states bristle at and perhaps react aggressively to the new Shiite hegemony in the region, which those Sunni states very well may take as a serious threat.
I disagree that Immanence is important .
If there is certainty and seriousness in a pereived threat , what good is waiting for it?
-
One would expect in a total number of 2937 posts there to be some flicker of intelligence but, ah, one can still hope. Despite your knee-jerk, over-the-top, too-much-by-a-ton characteristic way of responding, the FACT remains -- not subject to debate among responsible parties -- that "imminence" is a key element that must be present before a preemptive strike can be justified, precisely for the reasons I alluded to in my last post. Suppose that by every indication, the certainty of attack (on today's facts) is assured and that it would be devastating ... but that the capability for the strike will take two years to congeal, in the context of a fairly volatile political landscape. What I say is this: you and your Bushisms can kiss my ass.
-
NOT, if as I have been saying all along, the Muslim leaders are able to effectively educate the difference between accidental death involved in collateral damage vs targeted death at the hands of those who have hijacked their religion. Yea, yea, I know, death is death, and a father's not going to care how, just who. The point remains if both can be explained, it's much more likely that an understanding of the message that there is a war, and it's their own radical elements fostering, festering, and facilitating it.
I think one issue to address here is the organisation of Islam. I hear, quite often, people say something like "Muslim leaders need to condemn..." or "Muslim leaders need to educate..." and sometimes they mean leaders of countries and other times they aren't sure what they mean.
Islam is not as hierarchically organised as Christian denominations. We may want it to be and we may try and conform it as best we can in our minds, but it isn't. There are different "experts" on Islam. For example, there are jurists who are experts with the law (known as mufti) and there are mullahs, who are sometimes very knowledgable about Islam (and other times are just locally respected). There are Imams, ulema, qadi, faqih, muhaddith, Marja Dini, Maulana, and many more titles of different varieties of scholars and experts - but none of them are officially "leaders" as are the bishops, presbyters, councils, and pastors of Christendom.
It just isn't the same. And in no case are secular leaders considered to be more knowledgable, as Colonel Qaddafi pointed out when he ruled the Hadith to be useless and only the Koran to be the official text of Islam. Let's just say he had more popular days as an Arab leader.
I think there is a common misconception amongst Western folks that Islam is organised just like Christianity and they keep waiting for Muslim Bishops (presbyters, councils, etc) to condemn attacks or as you said "educate people." It just doesn't work that way. Nor do the vast majority of Muslims want it to work that way.
The point remains if both can be explained, it's much more likely that an understanding of the message that there is a war, and it's their own radical elements fostering, festering, and facilitating it.
Take a real objective view Sirs. Isn't that a little disengenuous for Iraqis, considering that we invaded their country and it had nothing to do with militant Islam? That seems like a hard sell for the average Iraqi. Even if American soldiers weren't there, you'd be fighting this war. I don't think so.
As is the case that most of the deaths are mass murdering car bombs & suicide bombers in the most populated locations, such as market places, schools, mosques, etc., again it's more plausible that the "nutters" can be indentified as those that have mutated the message of Islam vs the accidental death caused via collateral damage, and that with their assistance, can help bring an end to their movement, and thus reduce, if not completely abolish the rubble causing tank
I think its is more likely that the nutters are fighting a very easily identified political struggle. The battle in Iraq has little to do with militant Islam. This was a war that was fought when the British first took over for the Ottoman Empire after World War I. The Brits were the first to put the Sunni's in charge and squash the Shi'a and Kurdish rebellions. The Shi'a and Kurds have been the poor and oppressed in 20th and 21st century history. We turned the balnce of power on its head. Naturally the Sunni are fighting that. It has little to do with radical militant Islam, and much more to do with trying to find balance in a power vacuum.
With all due respect Js, they've already let us know why they (Radical Muslims/Islamofascists) are angry, and no, it's not because of supposed interferrence in their ways or support of Israel. For some yes, that's the reason. But for the core of militant Islam, with they're actions, rhetoric, and claims of Koran justification, it's because we're not Muslim. And because we're the infidels, who dare not embrace Allah and the ways of the Koran, we are to be wiped out, if we can't be made to convert or be subjugated to it. Does it mean it's doable, like Tee keeps trying to reference? Highly doubtful. What it does mean is a continued growing perceived win-win movement where they kill as many "infidels" as possible, and if they get killed in the process, lots of virgins await them. Yea, it's an irrational mindset, but radical fundamentalists of any religion will latch on to those passages of killing non-believers, and believe they are doing God's work. They're condemned when they do it in the name of the Christian God, and they are condemned when they do it in the name of Allah. Difference being, there's a massive growing element of 1 that is not occuring in the other.
As a whole with the War on Terrorism (not just in Iraq) I still disagree Sirs.
People aren't born evil. They aren't born torturers, murderers, bombers, and terrorists. There is much more to this than militant Islam and an attempt to convert the world. They have to be able to convince people to join their cause. It is at that point that we can stop them, not through the violence of war, but through other means. We have to make these people see that this world is not so terrible that innocent people need to be murdered.
It is a bit like the riots of the late 60's in a lot of US cities and riots that would take place in places like Brixton 20 years later in Britain. Some people refer to them as "race riots" and leave it at that. But there is always something more, something deeper. It doesn't excuse rioting behavior, but it gives a better perspective to the frustrations of the communities where it takes place (such as Watts for example, or Brixton).
Alas my friend, you can not appease militant islamic terrorists. You can not placate, rationalize, and try to "understand why they feel the way they feel". We seem to be trying to discuss 2 different things. I think you're trying to reference the "plight of poor Arabs/Palestinians", as if they alone are the foundation to militant Islam. I'm actually referencing militant Islamics, who can be poor, middle class or upper class. They're a mutation of a very peaceful religion, who's focus is on killing the infidels.
I'm not talking about appeasing anyone. I'm talking about exactly what I said: We need to address the underlying problems that have led so many to hatred and desperation. We cannot answer the violence of terrorism with the violence of war. We have to demonstrate a different path, a better path.
Don't confuse working to life up those in desperate poverty in the Islamic countries with appeasing terrorism. I'm not referencing Palestinians alone, in fact I think you'll find that none of the 9/11 terrorists were Palestinian. And also, as I keep telling you, not all Palestinians are Muslim. You seem to very often confuse political terrorism with religious terrorism.
It has to come from within. It has to come from the Muslim community. They have to rise up and condemn these factions, and take a much more active roll in taking them out.
Again, I think you fail to understand the organisation of Islam. Most Muslims do not wish to be a part of militant Islam. I don't recall any of you talking about how Christians should stand up and and condemn the IRA or the UVF. They've killed quite a few people as well. Why wasn't that a "Christian problem" yet this is a "Muslim problem?"
Yet your recent references of how these country's and their leaders really can't do that, because of geo-political reasons
You're confusing things again. I said some Arab nations cannot recognise Israel due to internal political reasons. The problem you have is that you don't understand the politics of the region at all and you cannot separate the political and the religious. You can't understand that the Baathists such as Saddam Hussein and Assad were two of the top fighters against Islamic radicals like Muslim Brotherhood. You can't understand that comparing the anti-Israeli terrorist groups to al-Qaeda is like claiming that FARC is a Christian terrorist group.
I'm not attacking you Sirs, not at all. But I think one should understand the region and the people before going to war with them, or making blanket statements about them. Otherwise you and a lot of Americans tend to suffer from the same disease of placing American-similarities on every global situation.
-
One would expect in a total number of 2937 posts there to be some flicker of intelligence but, ah, one can still hope. Despite your knee-jerk, over-the-top, too-much-by-a-ton characteristic way of responding, the FACT remains -- not subject to debate among responsible parties -- that "imminence" is a key element that must be present before a preemptive strike can be justified, precisely for the reasons I alluded to in my last post. Suppose that by every indication, the certainty of attack (on today's facts) is assured and that it would be devastating ... but that the capability for the strike will take two years to congeal, in the context of a fairly volatile political landscape. What I say is this: you and your Bushisms can kiss my ass.
It amounts to an axiom then that later is better?
I don't see why , if one has certainty and the threat is serious then what is the waiting for?
On the other hand I shall remember your arguement next time we are discussing Global warming which is not an immanant peril so responsible parties will not favor immediate action on it.
-
As a whole with the War on Terrorism (not just in Iraq) I still disagree Sirs.
That's not surprising, especially when we have 2 apparent different sources (why's) to the terrorism
People aren't born evil. They aren't born torturers, murderers, bombers, and terrorists.
Never said they were. Most, if not all are "educated" in that direction. Some would call it cradle to grave propaganda. When you have textbooks that continue to show how Israel doesn't exist in your geographical region, when you have school children being taught as soon as they can grasp concepts how Israel, and any who support them, as the source of all their strife, poverty, disease & death, when you have radicals who will mutate the message of Islam to justify killing those monkeys, and infidels, that's when we get evil torturers, murderers, suicide bombers, and terrorists.
There is much more to this than militant Islam and an attempt to convert the world. They have to be able to convince people to join their cause. It is at that point that we can stop them, not through the violence of war, but through other means. We have to make these people see that this world is not so terrible that innocent people need to be murdered.
Something "greater" than trying to convert the world? Interesting. Js, religion is a powerful tool. We all recognize that. And made more powerful to folks who are either ignorant or taught to be. According to a former Muslim/PLO Terrorist, Walid Shoebat "It is a fallacy that 'jihad' represents an 'inner struggle'. There are over 100 quotes by Muhammad referring to jihad by the sword, by killing, by taking no prisoners, by forced conversion, or by enslavement, and only 1 quote referring to an 'internal struggle'" Radical Islamic militants assert that Jihad is an actual war of conquest, entirely without limits or constraints, and that all nations and their peoples, who are not followers of Islam are inherently enemies of Islam itself, and therefor must either be converted, subjugated, or killed......in the name of Allah. Now is this rational? plausible? probably not. But will that stop them from targeting and killing innocents? Absolutely not. And the way to "convince them", as you say is to convince the moderate and peaceful Muslims/Arabs/Persians/etc, of precisely what's being done to their religion of Islam, by these folks. Yet you keep finding/rationalizing ways to claim how they can't
It is a bit like the riots of the late 60's in a lot of US cities and riots that would take place in places like Brixton 20 years later in Britain. Some people refer to them as "race riots" and leave it at that. But there is always something more, something deeper. It doesn't excuse rioting behavior, but it gives a better perspective to the frustrations of the communities where it takes place.
Plurality and Peaceful Co-existence is not an option with Islamofascism/militant Islam. I'm not sure when you're going to gome to that realization
I'm not talking about appeasing anyone. I'm talking about exactly what I said: We need to address the underlying problems that have led so many to hatred and desperation. We cannot answer the violence of terrorism with the violence of war. We have to demonstrate a different path, a better path.
You're talking about addressing a symptom (Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and your perceived evil apartheid that Israel is supposedly practicing, while I'm trying to get you to focus on the problem of militant Islam. As I've referenced before, the modern incarnation of fascist totalitarianism is located in radical fundamental Islam, and it's members. They see Islam as the perfect religion, destined to rule the world and, with one of their primary responsibilities being to purge it of the infidel. Yes, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a by product of it, but in its current manifestation, the Palestinians are simply being used by these radicals to justify their murdering
Don't confuse working to life up those in desperate poverty in the Islamic countries with appeasing terrorism. I'm not referencing Palestinians alone, in fact I think you'll find that none of the 9/11 terrorists were Palestinian.
When you keep referencing how we need to understand what makes them "terrorists" get angry and do the vile and murderous acts they do, I'm sorry, that's the road to appeasement. Note how you helped make my point about 911 terrorists not being Palestinian. I never claimed they were. I claimed, and accurate I do believe, of being members of militant Islam, who attacked us on 911, NOT because of our support of Israel, but because of our overall non-Muslim ways, basically being the head infidel. IIRC, did you realize before 911, and I do believe even before we went into Afghanistan, at no time did Usama or AlQeada reference the plight of the Palestinians? It wasn't until after our military intervention, and kicking their butts into the mountains, that all of a sudden their actions are supposedly at the behest and support of the Palestinian cause. BS, it's at in the support of their cause.
And also, as I keep telling you, not all Palestinians are Muslim. You seem to very often confuse political terrorism with religious terrorism.
Nor have I been laying claim that it's strictly Palestinian/Muslim. You seem to confuse what I've been saying with what you think I must mean.
It has to come from within. It has to come from the Muslim community. They have to rise up and condemn these factions, and take a much more active roll in taking them out.
Again, I think you fail to understand the organization of Islam. Most Muslims do not wish to be a part of militant Islam. I don't recall any of you talking about how Christians should stand up and and condemn the IRA or the UVF. They've killed quite a few people as well. Why wasn't that a "Christian problem" yet this is a "Muslim problem?"....I said some Arab nations cannot recognize Israel due to internal political reasons. The problem you have is that you don't understand the politics of the region at all and you cannot separate the political and the religious
Any murder in the name of God, Allah, or whatever is not only a problem, but requires condemnation in order to provide it both the context and perspective to other moderates and those trying to figure out what the hell is going on. Are you trying to say that since you didn't hear enough condemnation aimed at the IRA, that this requires the same tact.....to be fair, or something?? Again, the one best NON-violent approach to disarming militant Islam, and in turn address the issues of the Palestinians, you find ways to rationalize how it can't be done, Then condemn us and Israel when we use violent means in dealing with these terrorists. Frellin amazing You again put this all on Israel to change their "evil ways", and pray to God that the terrorist organizations & Radical Islamic militants, bent on seeing their destruction magically start joining hands and singing KumBaYa. :-\
I'm not attacking you Sirs, not at all. But I think one should understand the region and the people before going to war with them, or making blanket statements about them. Otherwise you and a lot of Americans tend to suffer from the same disease of placing American-similarities on every global situation.
I realize you're not attacking me personally, nor is Miss Henny, and I sure hope it doesn't come off that I'm attacking you, since I'm not. I simply wish you could open your eyes and objectively get past the Palestinian problem as if that's the core gripe behind militant Islam, and see that ideology for what it is, a malignancy, one that has hijacked a perfectly peaceful and loving religion, using it to justify the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women, and children. Does it mean we shelve the Palestinian problem?, of course not. Does it mean that Israel is pure and mountain rain water?, obviously not. It means before we can tackle that symptom, we need to deal with the disease. And if you're going to continue to lock up our best non-violent chance at dealing with it, up in the medicine cabinet, our patient is just going to keep getting sicker........perhaps even die. :'(
-
I disagree that Immanence is important .
If there is certainty and seriousness in a perceived threat , what good is waiting for it?
==========================================================
The threat must be feasible. In the Islamic world especially, most threats are mere posturing and buffoonery. The Syrians, the Egyptians, pretty much every Arab bunch in the area has vowed to "push Israel into the Sea", and there they are, still high and dry, still unpushed. The only people who believe this bullcrap are the American Jews who send bazillions to Israel and lobgby Congress to send bazillions more.
Saddam was not to be taken seriously. It was all a ruse, and a very, vert expensive one, certainly not worth all the maimed Americans, all the widows and ophans, all the men driven mad by war, and all the billions and billions, probably enough to raise New Orleans to the height of Denver.
-
I disagree that Immanence is important .
If there is certainty and seriousness in a perceived threat , what good is waiting for it?
==========================================================
The threat must be feasible. In the Islamic world especially, most threats are mere posturing and buffoonery. The Syrians, the Egyptians, pretty much every Arab bunch in the area has vowed to "push Israel into the Sea", and there they are, still high and dry, still unpushed. The only people who believe this bullcrap are the American Jews who send bazillions to Israel and lobgby Congress to send bazillions more.
Saddam was not to be taken seriously. It was all a ruse, and a very, vert expensive one, certainly not worth all the maimed Americans, all the widows and ophans, all the men driven mad by war, and all the billions and billions, probably enough to raise New Orleans to the height of Denver.
I agree that raiseing the ground level of New Orliens is a good idea.
I don't agree that all unfreindly threats are from buffoons .
I am getting a very plesant mental picture though , of Osama Bin Laden dressed like Bozo.
In any case , it behooves us to elect leadership with wisdom so that intelligence is used well.
And to fund and otherwise support a massive spying program so that such intelligence is there for evaluation.
If we must wait for certainty to be better than a shadow of a doubt,
and seriousness to be on a par with Pearl Harbor ,
and also we must wait for the last possible minute ......
Then we cannot afford to be surprised or tricked , we need to know everything humanly possible to know.
So do you agree with haveing a strong intelligence effort?
-
I tried to get some kind of overview on this thread, which I think was really well-argued by all sides and covered a lot of ground. The fundamental split seems to be between those who recognize the immense complexity of the concept of "terrorism" and therefore of the so-called "war on terrorism" and those who tend, IMHO due to some combination of ignorance, bigotry and intellectual laziness, to oversimplify. Invariably the oversimplification wnds up with the world divided into two camps, the virtuous "us" and the evil everybody else. Henny deserves special commendation for her analysis of the various paths by which "terrorists" come to "terrorism." Certainly "terrorism" is far from monolithic, although both the uninformed and the politically unscrupulous have their own respective reasons for portraying it as such.
I would like, if only on an experimental and temporary basis, to abandon all efforts to classify human actions as "terroristic" or "anti-terrorist" or "not terrorist" and instead to classify human actions in terms of harm done, i.e., number of human beings likely to be killed, wounded, poisoned or otherwise injured in consequence of any particular act or policy. So that, for example, we look on a decision to plant a bomb in a crowded market in terms of what's the likely cost in life and limb. And we similarly evaluate a decision to invade a country to free it from a tyrannical dictator and bring it under a democratic regime - - what's the cost of THAT in life and limb?
The first thing I think we'd realize is that the so-called "terrorists," when evaluated in terms of their actions' likelihood of maiming and killing are probably going to come out not as badly as (say) the Bush administration, even if we accept their (the Bush administration's) current explanation for being in Iraq (that it's all about liberation and has nothing at all to do with the oil.)
So you have a willingness on the one side to blow people to bits to (a) destroy the enemies of God or (b) drive the invaders out of the homeland or (c) radicalize people to rise up, and on the other side to (a) bring democracy to people who never knew it and/or (b) steal their oil. At the end of the day, dead is dead, for whatever political or religious objective and yet on behalf of the over-simplifiers, you have this overweening conviction that they are the good guys and the people they call "terrorists" are the bad guys. What is wrong with this picture?
Another feature of this debate was the absolute conviction with which those who have had little or no contact with Muslims, with Muslim thought or with Islamic belief systems (who in fact in one case indignantly refused to even look at some of the source material) nevertheless pronounce as experts on what Muslims think and what Muslims want. Again you have a monumental ignorance of reality reflecting mediated versions of Islam (mediated through Zionist "scholars" of the Muslim world, such as Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes, both Jews and both supporters of the state of Israel with obvious axes to grind) yet the authentic voices of the various strains of current Muslim thought are terra incognita. Sirs, for example, refutes the commonly held belief that jihad refers to an internal struggle by pointing out that the Koran has "100" references to jihad as actual, physical combat with weapons. Now you can bet that sirs did not come by this knowledge through his diligent reading of the Koran, rather this was his "mediated" view of Islam, that part or parts of it that the so-called scholars of Islam (the only ones that sirs is allowed or permits himself to read) have culled for him and the rest of the North Americans whose views of the world come from tightly controlled media sources. There's a whole industry of pro-Zionist "experts" on the Muslim world appearing like clockwork on the MSM and while alternative views are available, they are relatively much harder to come across. I think Henny did a particularly fine job in exposing that type of ignorance and bigotry for what it was.
There's a lot of anger and hatred in the Middle East, sirs definitely has that right, but how much of it was generated in one way or another, directly or indirectly, by the actions of Westerners, Christians and Jews, seems to go largely unrecognized, except in the token acknowledgement, "Oh I don't mean to claim that America/Israel is/are as pure as the driven snow." That's just not good enough for an effective understanding of the situation. My concern is that the hatred has by now built up to the point where nothing can defuse it. But I think that a blind pursuit of the same policies that got us all to this point is the craziest of all possible solutions. Something has got to change and the change will have to come from this side.
PS although I know that some of you are more likely to stick needles in your eyes than to read a book that I recommend, I am nevertheless going to recommend Joe Sacco's cartoon book "Palestine," which is a little dated now, as it refers back to the First Intifada, but in terms of who the "terrorists" are and what their life stories are, it's timeless. Sacco is a real journalist and this is the story he brought back, after interviewing everybody involved, Jews, Palestinians, Christian tourists, soldiers, resistance fighters, feminists, children and adolescents.
-
http://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Joe-Sacco/dp/156097432X
-
Sirs,
I'm not sure where else to go with this discussion because I'll never see the world in such manichean terms as you quite clearly do.
I would like to clarify a few things first.
Again, the one best NON-violent approach to disarming militant Islam, and in turn address the issues of the Palestinians, you find ways to rationalize how it can't be done, Then condemn us and Israel when we use violent means in dealing with these terrorists. Frellin amazing You again put this all on Israel to change their "evil ways", and pray to God that the terrorist organizations & Radical Islamic militants, bent on seeing their destruction magically start joining hands and singing KumBaYa.
I never once "put this all on Israel" and I have no idea where you got that idea. Moreover, you mention Israel several times in your reply, but I barely mention them at all in my post. In fact, the only time I did mention them was only as an example to illustrate the difference between political groups with militant wings (similar to Sinn Fein and the IRA) as opposed to actual radical Islamic militant groups such as Muslim Brotherhood or al-Qaeda, who have strictly religious goals in mind.
You seem much more caught up with Israel in this discussion than I am. Yours and Domer's "kumbaya" joke is getting a bit stale and simplifies my point far beyond recognition.
When you keep referencing how we need to understand what makes them "terrorists" get angry and do the vile and murderous acts they do, I'm sorry, that's the road to appeasement.
No it isn't. Primarily because I'm talking about before anyone decides it is better to put down their tools and pick up a weapon. That decision is far easier to make when you have no future, no dignity, no options, no prospects.
Are you trying to say that since you didn't hear enough condemnation aimed at the IRA, that this requires the same tact.....to be fair, or something??
*sigh*
No. My point is that because westerners have little understanding of Islam, all of these calls for Muslim leaders to condemn attacks become confusing, if not ridiculous to Muslims in the United States and around the world. Some of these groups that make attacks are no more related to Islam than FARC is related to Christianity, yet for some reason this administration and the media have grouped them together. So for Muslims it would be the equivalent of pondering why Christians aren't running around condemning FARC attacks or IRA or UVF attacks when they took place.
That is my point. At times it must seem nearly farcical for Muslims to read articles on why they aren't condemning this or that. Or why their "leaders" (see what I said on Islam and hierarchy) aren't condemning people left and right. There was a Cal Thomas article not long ago that was condemning an American mullah on a prayer he made to an interfaith group. The prayer is the very opening of the Koran. Yet, Thomas attached another prayer to it that had nothing to do with the Koran at all and in fact would never have been said by a Muslim mullah and never attached to the opening prayer. If you read it closely Thomas admits he got the information second hand from a website.
My point is that Islam has no reason to listen to you, or me, or Cal Thomas when westerners who know so little about it start talking about how it should govern itself. Do you go around telling Catholics how the Church should govern itself? Even if you did, why should they listen to you?
That is my point Sirs. Quite frankly, you don't know enough about it to be giving advice to the entirety of Islam.
I am way past the Palestinian issue, if we want to keep it out of the discussion that is fine by me.
-
plane, thanks for posting the Amazon link to Joe Sacco's Palestine. The link mentioned another excellent graphic work, Persepolis by M. Satrapi, the story of a middle-class girl from a relatively liberal home growing up in Iran under the Islamic Revolution, and I think it would be a lot more acceptable to those of the right-wing persuasion than Palestine, because it's pretty unsympathetic to the mullahs and their moronic supporters.
-
I never once "put this all on Israel" and I have no idea where you got that idea.
The idea is gotten by the continued referencing of how bad Israelis policies are, how that is the supposed foundation of the entire Middle East conflict (that and our supposed "interferrence), and yet nothing is referenced in what the Arab & Persian countries need to do, to reign in militant Islam, or even in helping out the Palestinians, by rovding them sancuary, and even offering them citizenship. No, it's all about how bad Israel is and what they need to do. so, yea, without a verbatim quote, the implication is crystal clear
Moreover, you mention Israel several times in your reply, but I barely mention them at all in my post. In fact, the only time I did mention them was only as an example to illustrate the difference between political groups with militant wings as opposed to actual radical Islamic militant groups such as Muslim Brotherhood or al-Qaeda, who have strictly religious goals in mind.
Excuse me?? You're the one that consistently references their "apartheid practices", as well as how we need to understand why terrorists become terrorists, thru apparent endless poverty and strife, with nothing to look forward to. Innuendo is a strong oder in many of your posts, Js. Could we rightly assume how such poverty of Palestinians is facilitated by the policies of Israel? ergo, if we understand that, then we can grasp what needs to change....Israel. Or maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps your referencing the poverty that permeates the entire Middle East region. So, what could be facilitating that? Hmmmm, royal families, living in palaces, imans living in the lap of luxury, with the greatest of clothing and accessories, ruling their countries with an iron fist, while the oil profits largely get banked or used to build bigger and better residences vs shared with the populace? Just guesses on my part, but how far off would I be?
I'm talking about before anyone decides it is better to put down their tools and pick up a weapon. That decision is far easier to make when you have no future, no dignity, no options, no prospects.
So, in your view, what has led to that "no dignity, no options, no prospects, no future mentality? Perhaps Israel and her policies towards the Palestinians??
Are you trying to say that since you didn't hear enough condemnation aimed at the IRA, that this requires the same tact.....to be fair, or something??
No. My point is that because westerners have little understanding of Islam, all of these calls for Muslim leaders to condemn attacks become confusing, if not ridiculous to Muslims in the United States and around the world. Some of these groups that make attacks are no more related to Islam than FARC is related to Christianity, yet for some reason this administration and the media have grouped them together.
JS, they USE ISLAM as a justification for their killing. They're TARGETING AND MURDERING MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN, IN THE NAME OF ALLAH. You're using lawyer speak, when the fact remains that, regardless of if they're related or not, they're USING Islam to justify their torture and slaughter of innocents. How is this "confusing, if not ridiculous" to Muslims anywhere?
My point is that Islam has no reason to listen to you, or me, or Cal Thomas when westerners who know so little about it start talking about how it should govern itself. Do you go around telling Catholics how the Church should govern itself? Even if you did, why should they listen to you?
I'm not asking them to listen to me. I'm asking them to listen to themselves. I'm asking them if they believe this threat to their religion is real or not. If they do, they need to do something about it. If they don't, we will do something about it, as we don't want to see a repeat of the late 30's/early 40's. But there's going to be alot more collateral damage, with that tact :-\
I am way past the Palestinian issue, if we want to keep it out of the discussion that is fine by me.
I have no interest in talking about the Palestinian symptom. I'd much rather discuss the militant Islamic disease
-
The idea is gotten by the continued referencing of how bad Israelis policies are, how that is the supposed foundation of the entire Middle East conflict (that and our supposed "interferrence), and yet nothing is referenced in what the Arab & Persian countries need to do, to reign in militant Islam, or even in helping out the Palestinians, by rovding them sancuary, and even offering them citizenship. No, it's all about how bad Israel is and what they need to do. so, yea, without a verbatim quote, the implication is crystal clear
You are laying a lot at my doorstep that is not mine. Israel's apartheid policies are bad, yes. Do I believe they help prolong the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians? Yes. Have I suggested that is the foundation of all the conflict in the Middle East? No - and if you are going to make that accusation, I suggest you provide proof. Furthermore, while I strongly disagree with apartheid policies from any nation, I do not believe all of Israel's policies are bad and in fact I find some of Israel's work to be unique to that nation and absolutely remarkable.
Your "crystal clear implication" needs some polishing. You are building a strawman that doesn't exist.
Excuse me?? You're the one that consistently references their "apartheid practices"
In another thread where that has become the focus. I barely mentioned Israel in this thread, but you keep bringing them up and I don't know why.
Perhaps your referencing the poverty that permeates the entire Middle East region.
Yes.
So, what could be facilitating that? Hmmmm, royal families, living in palaces, imans living in the lap of luxury, with the greatest of clothing and accessories, ruling their countries with an iron fist, while the oil profits largely get banked or used to build bigger and better residences vs shared with the populace? Just guesses on my part, but how far off would I be?
In Turkmenistan you are spot on. In other nations you are way off. You are trying to make a blanket statement for a very diverse region. What role have we played and do we play in the poverty of these people? How can we help to reverse that? What can be done to give the people of the Mideast, no matter what religion they follow, a hopeful future with a lot of prospects?
So, in your view, what has led to that "no dignity, no options, no prospects, no future mentality? Perhaps Israel and her policies towards the Palestinians??
Again you are bringing it up when I have not, so I'll ignore the second sentence.
The better question is what can be done to reverse the fortune of those who see this as a world with "no dignity, no options, no prospects, no future?" This isn't the United States Sirs. These aren't people whose kids are talking to each other on cell phones about what university they want to attend and who they want to take to the prom. Yes, some of them have money and choices, but too many of them don't. You want to end terrorism, give them opportunities.
JS, they USE ISLAM as a justification for their killing.
So what? If it wasn't Islam it would be something else. They use history as justification for their killing as well. They use the Gulf War and history dating back to the Ottoman Turks and the Soviets as well. Are all of us with a bachelor's in history not doing enough to condemn them? They use politics as well, are politicians or political scientists not doing enough to condemn them too? People with the will to kill and commit suicide are going to find an impetus to do it.
Why do members of FARC kill? Why did the IRA or UVF kill? Why does America have such a high homicide rate? What's our excuse?
Quite frankly, followers of Islam are constantly condemning the actions of terrorists. What do you want them to do? Many of those nations have been fighting terrorists far longer than we have. Are we suddenly the experts to tell them what to do about it? Are you an expert more than nations that have fought them for decades?
If they don't, we will do something about it, as we don't want to see a repeat of the late 30's/early 40's. But there's going to be alot more collateral damage, with that tact
An amateurish theory of history based on little reality.
I have no interest in talking about the Palestinian symptom. I'd much rather discuss the militant Islamic disease
A bold statement for someone who knows so little of the religion.