Iraq Discussion.....for the rationally minded

[sirs]

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

[Henny]

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. 

[sirs]

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?

[Henny]

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.

[sirs]

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.

[Henny]

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.

[sirs]

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.

[sirs]

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     

[domer]

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.

[sirs]

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)

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Plane]

'...........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.

[sirs]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<< 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.

[sirs]

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.